SynthesisNoise & health
Meta-analysis of Occupational Factors Contributing to Variability in Noise-induced Hearing Loss Severity.
Synthesis in Noise & health. 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
This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate occupational factors that contribute to variability in noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) severity across different industrial sectors and identify high-risk occupational groups for targeted intervention strategies. A comprehensive systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases from January 2003 to January 2025. Studies were included if they reported quantitative measures of NIHL prevalence, odds ratios, or prevalence ratios (PRs) with 95% confidence intervals across different occupational sectors. Keywords included "noise-induced hearing loss," "occupational hearing loss," "prevalence," "odds ratio (OR)," and specific occupation terms including "miners," "construction workers," "manufacturing workers," "industrial noise," "deafness," and "occupational disease." Data extraction focused on study characteristics, participant demographics, noise exposure levels, and NIHL outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis models were employed using Stata 17.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Eleven cross-sectional studies (no cohort or case-control studies met the inclusion criteria) encompassing 169,804 workers across multiple industries were included. Mining demonstrated the highest NIHL severity, with prevalence ranging from 22.9% to 47%. Gold ore mining showed a prevalence of 22.9%, while support activities for coal mining exhibited a prevalence of 18.1% with risk elevation. Manufacturing sectors showed consistent risk elevations across geographic regions, with developing countries reporting higher prevalence rates (20.4%-30.7%) compared to developed countries (14%-17%). Construction industry workers had prevalence rates of 17% to 26.9% across different subsectors. Age emerged as a critical modifier, with workers ≥35 years showing substantially increased risk. Geographic variations were observed, with developing countries generally reporting higher prevalence rates across all industries. Mining demonstrates the highest NIHL risk (PR up to 2.02), followed by construction and manufacturing. These findings support industry-specific hearing conservation programs in high-risk occupational environments.
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.