ArticleCoDAS2023
Audiological findings of family farmers exposed to pesticides.
Article in CoDAS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the possible differences among the hearing of farmers and their families when compared to the population not exposed to pesticides.
methodsCross-sectional study with 70 smallholder family farmers (research group), with the mean age of 39.7 years, of both sexes and a mean of 23.7 years of exposure to pesticides. We included a control group with 71 participants of both sexes with the mean age of 39.5 years, not exposed to either noise or chemical substances, to compare the results. In stage 1, both groups were submitted to conventional and high-frequency audiometry, and acoustic immittance. In stage 2, only people with normal hearing were submitted to the evoked otoacoustic emissions and suppression effect on transient otoacoustic emissions.
resultsSignificant differences were observed between the groups in the conventional pure-tone and in the high-frequency audiometry, as well as in the acoustic reflex. The most affected frequencies in the conventional pure-tone audiometry ranged from 3 to 6 kHz and, in the high-frequency audiometry, from 9000 to 11200 Hz. As for the transient otoacoustic emissions, the worse suppression effect results were found in the research group.
conclusionThere were differences among the hearing of family farmers and the control group. The conventional auditory thresholds are related to the group, age and sex. Farming is associated with impairments in the basal region of the cochlea, absence of acoustic reflex, reduced signal-to-noise ratio of the transient otoacoustic emissions, and dysfunction in the olivocochlear efferents of the auditory system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.