ArticleNoise & health
Occupational Noise Exposure and High-Frequency Hearing Loss: A Comparative Study of Workers Across Multiple Industries.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare occupational noise exposure levels and identify risk factors for high-frequency hearing loss (HFHL) among workers in different industries.
methodsUsing typical sampling, 789 workers were recruited between January 2025 and July 2025, including those from manufacturing, construction, mining, and a low-noise-exposed control group. Demographic and occupational data were collected, personal noise exposure levels were measured, and bilateral hearing thresholds were assessed. For the comparison between groups of measurement data, an independent-samples t -test or one-way analysis of variance was used; for categorical data, the χ 2 test was employed. Multivariate logistic regression model was applied to analyze risk factors.
resultsSignificant intergroup differences in noise exposure levels were observed ( P < 0.05), with the mining group showing the highest exposure [89.74 ± 4.02 dB(A)]. HFHL prevalence was highest in the mining group (28.79%) compared with that in the other groups. The mining group exhibited a higher HFHL detection rate (28.79%) than the other groups. Multivariable logistic regression identified the following as significant risk factors: age ≥30 years [30-39 years: odds ratio (OR) = 2.320, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.318-4.084, P = 0.003; 40-49 years: OR = 4.500, 95% CI: 2.491-8.132, P < 0.001; 50-55 years: OR = 8.188, 95% CI: 4.332-15.476, P < 0.001], employment duration ≥11 years (11-20 years: OR = 2.298, 95% CI: 1.306-4.043, P = 0.004; >20 years: OR = 3.422, 95% CI: 1.888-6.202, P < 0.001), smoking (OR = 1.869, 95% CI: 1.257-2.778, P = 0.002), and occupational noise exposure (manufacturing: OR = 17.600, 95% CI: 4.091-75.708, P < 0.001; construction: OR = 24.592, 95% CI: 5.848-103.419, P < 0.001; mining: OR = 40.021, 95% CI: 9.611-166.645, P < 0.001). The use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) was a significant protective factor (OR = 0.435, 95% CI: 0.288-0.657, P < 0.001).
conclusionOccupational noise exposure is an independent risk factor for HFHL, with marked industry-specific differences. Enhanced noise control measures and improved HPD compliance, particularly in mining and construction, are urgently needed for HFHL prevention.
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.