ArticleNoise & health
Effectiveness of Workplace Noise-risk Classification with Hearing Protection in Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of combining workplace noise-risk classification with a hearing protection program to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss (ONIHL).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 400 male noise‑exposed workers from an automotive manufacturing company. Based on workshop‑level protection strategies implemented by the company, participants were assigned to either a control group ( n = 200, traditional measures) or an observation group ( n = 200, risk classification plus standardized hearing protection). Outcomes assessed at the end of 2023 included proper personal protective equipment use, average noise exposure, speech-/high‑frequency hearing loss, high‑frequency standard threshold shift (STS), and ONIHL incidence. Statistical comparisons were performed using independent t tests, χ 2 tests, and logistic regression.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the groups ( P > 0.05). At follow‑up, the observation group showed significantly better outcomes (all P < 0.05): higher personal protective equipment compliance (87.50% versus 63.00%), lower noise exposure (86.26 ± 1.99 versus 88.72 ± 1.77 dB(A)), and lower rates of speech‑frequency hearing loss (20.00% versus 52.50%), high‑frequency hearing loss (35.00% versus 65.00%), high‑frequency STS (5.00% versus 20.00%), and ONIHL (1.00% versus 5.50%). Job-type subgroup analyses indicated a significant protective effect in stamping (STS: 3.85% versus 15.00%, P = 0.017), but not in welding (4.48% versus 13.85%, P = 0.061); machining showed a significant reduction (3.64% versus 14.55%, P = 0.047).
conclusionThe integrated strategy was associated with improved protection compliance, reduced noise exposure, and lower hearing loss rates. However, due to the non‑randomized, workshop‑level assignment, causal inferences should be made cautiously. Prospective studies are needed to confirm causality.
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.