ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Safe Sound: Highlighting Electronic Dance Music Attendees' Unique Hearing Protection Practices.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Auditory Symptoms Among Musicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Safe Sound: Highlighting Electronic Dance Music Attendees' Unique Hearing Protection Practices.The Laryngoscope · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies suggest electronic dance music attendees (EDMAs) may use hearing protection (HP) more than non-EDM attendees (non-EDMAs), but reasons remain unclear. This study explores EDMA community characteristics that may explain this disparity and strategies to increase non-EDMAs' HP use.
methodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to online music forums. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and Pearson's chi-square tests were conducted alongside propensity-score matching to analyze EDMA and non-EDMAs, accounting for demographics and attendance characteristics. Multivariable logistic and ordinal regressions examined factors related to use and increased frequency of general HP and high-fidelity earplugs (HFE), adjusting for sociodemographic, attendance, and symptom characteristics.
results2022 participants (EDMAs: n = 1049; non-EDMAs: n = 1153) were studied. EDMAs attended more live music events (> 20 events, p < 0.001) for longer durations and reported greater postevent tinnitus and trouble hearing others (all p < 0.05). After matching, EDMAs showed greater HP use (70.47% vs. 59.40%, p < 0.001), consistency ("often or always": 48.49% vs. 29.56%, p < 0.001), and preference for HFEs (64.52% vs. 31.45%, p < 0.001). They showed greater concern for hearing damage and belief in HP efficacy (p < 0.001). More non-EDMAs viewed HP as unnecessary or harmful to music quality (p < 0.05). More EDMAs reported use of their selected modality of HP from social media or acquaintance referral (p < 0.001). In multivariable regression models, EDMAs had increased odds of general HP use (OR:1.96, 95% CI: 1.53-2.51, p < 0.001), specific HFE use (OR:2.98, 2.23-4.00, p < 0.001), and HP usage frequency (OR:1.60, 1.30-1.95, p < 0.001).
conclusionsLeveraging social networks and community-driven awareness-particularly promoting HFEs and addressing concerns about music quality-may enhance non-EDMA HP uptake. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.