ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2024
Evaluation of noise levels and noise sources in an Irish neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- What's that noise-tackling sound pollution in the NICU: a systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Does noise on my neonatal unit matter? Exploratory cross-sectional multiple cohort professional opinion survey study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Assessing Noise Levels in a Mexican Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Results From an Observational Study.Nursing research and practice · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study: (i) quantified the typical noise levels in an Irish neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and compared the values to recommendations by the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) and the European Standards for Care for Newborn Health (EFCNI) and to occupational exposure limit value and exposure action values; and (ii) qualified the perception of noise levels and the sources of noise across the various stakeholders within a typical NICU.
methodsA noise survey was conducted in an Irish NICU. Observations identified practices and behaviours in the NICU that potentially had an impact on noise levels. Noise levels were compared to occupational exposure limits and AAP and EFCNI standards. A noise perception survey was conducted to identify noise sources and awareness of noise levels in the NICU. Results were analysed using SPSS Statistics to determine statistical significance.
resultsNoise levels recorded were consistent with previous similar studies and in all cases, the average noise levels recorded exceeded the 45 dBA as recommended by the AAP and EFCNI. There was a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) between noise levels recorded on the day shift compared to the night shift. The perception of noise levels reported by nurses versus parents was found to be statistically significant (P = 0.001). 38.3% of all respondents reported having received no information or training with regard to noise in the NICU. There was a statistically significant difference in the perception of who is most likely to be affected by noise in the NICU, with nurses reporting those most likely to be affected by noise were patients, and parents reporting those most likely to be affected were staff (P = 0.003).
conclusionsThis study supports the hypothesis that noise levels within the NICU are of concern and require regular assessment and monitoring. Training and awareness programmes are an important component to ensuring all persons in the NICU recognise their potential impact on noise levels in the NICU and in reducing the risk for patients and staff.
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.