ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2026
A silent hazard-noise in the veterinary sector: a scoping review.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVeterinarians work with various species of animals, in many different work environments and have the potential to be exposed to sources of noise at levels that may be of concern.
aimsTo undertake a scoping review to compile existing evidence and determine the extent of knowledge that exists on the topic of occupational noise in the veterinary setting, including the sources, exposure levels, health impacts and hazard controls that exist.
methodsA systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Embase and CINAHL) as well as grey literature was undertaken to identify articles in accordance with the methodology developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.
resultsA total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. Various sources of noise were identified, including animals as well as equipment used. Personal noise exposures were found to exceed the commonly applied Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL)/upper exposure action value of LAeq,8 h 85 dB(A) for some workers, and audiometric testing found that some workers had hearing loss. Various noise controls were discussed that could be applied more widely to the veterinary sector.
conclusionsNoise is a hazard of importance in the veterinary sector, and further research is needed to ensure that veterinary workers are aware of the risks associated with occupational noise exposure, including what strategies can be implemented to reduce noise exposures.
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.