ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2022
The efficacy of earplugs at a major hazard facility.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hearing protection field attenuation estimation systems and associated training for reducing workers' exposure to noise.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At a major hazard facility, cases of occupational noise-induced hearing loss have occurred despite the use of hearing protection devices. Preliminary measurements of personal attenuation ratings (PAR) suggested that earplugs may not achieve the attenuation implied by their Australian SLC80 Class designation in field-use conditions. We examined the relationship between PAR and the SLC80 classification for earplugs, as a good understanding of the attenuation provided by earplugs under normal field-use conditions, rather than in laboratory settings, is vital to their effective use as a control measure for noise exposure. A cross-sectional study was performed with 65 volunteers. Participants were recruited from Operations and Maintenance Technicians at the major hazard facility. The participants had their PARs checked with different earplug types using the 3 M™ E-A-Rfit™ system. We examined the PARs measured and also assigned a 'pass' or 'fail' rating depending on whether the earplug achieved 22 dB attenuation. 22 dB attenuation for 80% of users is the minimum to meet the definition for Australian SLC80 Class 4 hearing protection. None of the earplug types achieved 22 dB attenuation for 80% of users when tested in field-use conditions. There were statistically significant differences in the frequency of achieving a 'Pass', and in PAR, depending on earplug type. Roll-down foam earplugs may provide superior attenuation compared to pre-moulded earplugs. Earplugs are unlikely to achieve the attenuation found in laboratory conditions during field-use. Personalised selection of hearing protection devices based on fit-testing results should be encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35023076What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.