Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39063532›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Noise Annoyance as a Determinant of Physiological Changes Linked to Disease Promotion.

Emily Senerth, Tejanth Pasumarthi, Neha Tangri, Bhavya Abbi, Skye Bickett, James P McNamee, David S Michaud, Rebecca L Morgan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Emily SenerthEvidence Foundation, 17415 Shelburne Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3516-1990
Tejanth PasumarthiEvidence Foundation, 17415 Shelburne Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-7681-7033
Neha TangriEvidence Foundation, 17415 Shelburne Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118, USA.
Bhavya AbbiFaculty of Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8, Canada.
Skye BickettEvidence Foundation, 17415 Shelburne Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118, USA.
James P McNameeHealth Canada, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Ottawa, ON KIA ICA, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2772-3455
David S MichaudHealth Canada, Environmental and Radiation Health Sciences Directorate, Consumer & Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau, Ottawa, ON KIA ICA, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6936-3342
Rebecca L MorganEvidence Foundation, 17415 Shelburne Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1012-4897

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review investigates the certainty of evidence (CoE) regarding noise annoyance as a determinant of biological changes known to contribute to disease development. We searched PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL for English-language comparative studies conducted on humans of any age from 1 January 1940, to 28 August 2023. Further, studies that provided quantitative data on the relationship between noise annoyance and biomarkers of interest were included. Where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate the odds ratios of noise annoyance on biomarkers and biological conditions considered to be risk factors for developing health effects. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias of Non-randomized Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) instrument. The CoE for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search identified 23 primary studies reporting on relevant biomarkers. Although some studies and pooled estimates suggest a possible association between noise annoyance and biological measures, the CoE overall is very low due to concerns with the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision in the estimates of effects. In the context of environmental impact assessment, where guidelines aim to mitigate the prevalence of populations experiencing a high level of noise annoyance, our results suggest that such practices should be grounded in the understanding that annoyance is health-relevant because it reflects an undesirable reaction to noise, rather than a precursor to chronic physical health conditions.

Indexed as

NoiseBiomarkersEnvironmental ExposureHumansBiomarkersallostatic loadbiological risk factorsdiseasenoise annoyancestresssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39063532
PMCPMC11276945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.