Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37948124›Full record

ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2023

A challenge to the evidence behind noise guidelines for UK hospitals.

T Hampton, S Everett, E Goldsmith, P J Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

T HamptonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6515-8058
S EverettHydrock, Manchester, M2 4DN, UK.
E GoldsmithHydrock, Manchester, M2 4DN, UK.
P J LeeAcoustics Research Unit, School of Architecture, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203919/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeams assessing hospital noise against international guidelines regularly find that noise exceeds perceived safe levels in clinical settings. The care of sick people may be inherently noisy but recent efforts to tackle the problem propose a wider scope to identify sources and qualities of noise as well as more precision with noise recording.

aimsWe sought to challenge the scientific evidence cited in the four major documents pertaining to hospital noise in the UK to clarify if evidence of harm from noise included in guidelines is available, contemporary and of high quality.

methodsOur team of hearing-health clinicians, acoustic scientists and acoustic engineers have conducted a narrative scoping review focused on critically appraising four of the most cited guidelines against which noise is measured in healthcare settings in the UK.

resultsThere is a lack of high-quality evidence for commonly accepted consequences of noise cited in current guidelines.

conclusionsThe current evidence base for noise guidelines in a healthcare setting is largely based on subjective heterogeneous and inconclusive research. Whilst reduced noise is not disputed as potentially beneficial for patient care, further hypothesis-driven research and interventions assessing the benefits or outcomes of any such intervention should be sought to produce high-quality evidence of relevance on the clinical coalface.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesHospitalsHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID37948124
PMCPMC10756659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.