ArticleNoise & health
Hearing Loss and Serum Lipid Profile Differences among Healthcare Versus Automotive Industry Workers: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article 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
backgroundNoise-induced hearing loss remains a common occupational disease. Although hazardous noise is primary cause, metabolic factors like dyslipidaemia may contribute, yet comparative evidence across diverse occupational settings remains limited.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare hearing thresholds and serum lipid profiles between healthcare employees and automotive industry workers and to assess the relative contributions of occupational noise exposure and dyslipidaemia to auditory outcomes.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 9965 employees (5698 automotive workers and 4267 healthcare employees) were evaluated. Pure-tone audiometry was performed in accordance with International Organization for Standardization 8253-1 standards, and fasting lipid panels were analysed using standardised protocols. Occupational noise exposure was characterised using representative workplace monitoring data. Healthcare staff experienced the equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) 60-70 dBA, exceeding WHO comfort recommendations. Automotive workers were exposed to LAeq 75-85 dBA, above long-term exposure limits. Comparative analyses were conducted using independent-samples t-tests and chi-square tests. Multivariable regression models were applied to identify independent predictors of hearing thresholds.
resultsDespite their higher noise exposure, automotive workers demonstrated significantly better auditory thresholds than healthcare employees (mean binaural threshold: 8.2 ± 6.8 dB vs. 10.7 ± 8.0 dB; P < 0.001). Occupation type was an independent predictor of hearing status. Lipid parameters (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and triglycerides) showed only weak and clinically negligible associations with auditory thresholds.
conclusionsHearing outcomes were more strongly influenced by occupational setting and preventive frameworks than by noise intensity or lipid status. Structured hearing conservation programs in the automotive sector showed protective effects, contrasting with limited measures in healthcare workplaces. These findings highlight the need to extend hearing conservation strategies beyond other sectors.
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.