SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies Addressing Environmental Noise: A Systematic Literature Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Review
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
Abstract
Environmental noise, a significant public health concern, is associated with adverse health effects, including cardiovascular diseases, cognitive impairments, and psychological distress. Noise reduction strategies are essential for mitigating these effects. Despite evidence of their health benefits, limited information exists on the cost-effectiveness of such strategies to guide resource allocation. This study systematically reviewed economic evaluation studies of interventions aimed at reducing environmental noise to assess their cost-effectiveness and inform policymaking. A systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were full economic evaluations addressing environmental noise reduction strategies, assessing both costs and health effects. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Quality appraisal employed the CHEERS 2022 checklist. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze findings due to heterogeneity in study designs, methodologies, and outcomes. Costs were standardized to 2024 euros. From 2906 identified records, five studies met the inclusion criteria, primarily focused on traffic-related noise. Three studies conducted cost-utility analyses, and two employed cost-benefit analyses. Reported interventions included sound insulation, take-off trajectory adjustments, and noise barriers. Economic evaluations varied significantly in methodologies, cost categories, and health outcomes. The health economic studies yielded mixed results, ranging from findings that demonstrated cost-effectiveness to those where the costs exceeded the benefits. There are currently too few health economic evaluations to draw robust conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of environmental noise mitigation strategies. Future research should adopt standardized approaches and robust sensitivity analyses to enhance evidence quality, enabling informed policy and resource allocation decisions.
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.