ArticleCureus2025
Impact of Subclinical Hearing Loss on Quality of Life Among Industrial Workers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis Utilizing the SF-36 Questionnaire.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOccupational noise exposure is a leading cause of hearing impairment, which can affect both physical and psychological well-being. While most research focuses on advanced hearing loss, the impact of mild auditory deficits remains underexplored.
objectiveThe study aims to investigate the relationship between varying degrees of hearing loss and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among industrial workers.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 345 full-time workers from three pharmaceutical factories in Attica, Greece, exposed to noise levels >85 dB, were categorized into three groups based on audiometric data: normal hearing (n = 195), mild hearing loss (n = 78), and evident hearing loss (n = 72). HRQoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation test (significance set at p < 0.05).
resultsCompared to workers with normal hearing, those with mild hearing loss scored significantly lower across all SF-36 dimensions (e.g., physical functioning: 91.5 vs. 95.8, p < 0.001; mental health: 84.8 vs. 94.3, p < 0.001). Even with preserved speech-frequency hearing, the mild group exhibited reduced emotional and social functioning. No significant QoL differences were observed by gender or education, except for bodily pain (p = 0.004). Age correlated negatively with physical functioning only in the group with evident hearing loss (r = -0.27, p = 0.02).
conclusionMild hearing loss can substantially impact the subjective QoL of workers, even in its early stages. Occupational health strategies should include psychosocial screening and counseling, as well as routine audiological monitoring.
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.