Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33692247›Full record

ArticleIndustrial health2021

The effect of wearing an anti-flash hood on the noise attenuation of earmuffs.

Gurmail S Paddan, Michael C Lower

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Industrial health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 98% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gurmail S PaddanInstitute of Naval Medicine, UK.
Michael C LowerISVR Consulting, University of Southampton, UK.
University of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The insertion losses of four pairs of earmuffs, including one noise-excluding headset, were measured in one-third octave bands in a diffuse broadband noise field using a head-like acoustic test fixture. The acoustic test fixture contained realistic ear simulators with microphones at the eardrum positions. The insertion losses were measured (i) with the earmuffs on their own, (ii) with the earmuffs worn over an anti-flash hood, and (iii) for one earmuff, with the earmuff worn under the hood. The other three earmuffs could not be fitted under the hood. The insertion loss of the anti-flash hood on its own was also measured. Wearing an anti-flash hood under the earmuffs greatly reduced the protection against noise, by 20-23 dB at high frequencies, by 17-20 dB at middle frequencies, by 12-16 dB at low frequencies, and by 16-20 dB overall. Only one earmuff was slim enough to fit under an anti-flash hood. Wearing an anti-flash hood over this earmuff had only a marginal effect on the earmuff insertion loss, of the order of 1 dB. If anti-flash hoods could be designed to fit over other types of earmuffs and headsets, the protection of these earmuffs and headsets would be virtually maintained.

Indexed as

Ear Protective DevicesHearing Loss, Noise-InducedAcousticsHumansNoiseAnti-flash hoodsEarmuffsHearing protectionHoodsInsertion lossSound attenuation

Identifiers

PMID33692247
PMCPMC8426543
OpenAlexW3134186626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.