Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42728742›Full record

ReviewJournal of paediatrics and child health2026

The Sound Environment in the PICU: A Scoping Review Describing Sound Levels, Interventions and Patient Impacts.

Janeen Bower, Hazel Low, Naomi Khan, Sebastian J Corlette, Emma Macdonald-Laurs, Andrea Veysey, Ben Gelbart, Kate Masterson

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of paediatrics and child health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Janeen BowerFaculty of Fine Arts and Music, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5176-3345
Hazel LowDepartment of Clinical Technology, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Naomi KhanDepartment of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1341-9626
Sebastian J CorletteDepartment of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1370-6937
Emma Macdonald-LaursClinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9894-4610
Andrea VeyseyClinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5257-5814
Ben GelbartClinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6833-0776
Kate MastersonClinical Sciences, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8323-1215

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Elevated sound levels are associated with increased morbidity in adult and neonatal intensive care; however, their impact in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) remains poorly characterised. The aim of this scoping review was to characterise sound exposure in the PICU, including its measurement, sources, and associations with patient outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (Ovid), and PubMed were searched up to 5 November 2025 for full-text, peer-reviewed publications within the past 10 years to reflect the contemporary PICU environment. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently screened by two authors, and results were reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. Thirty-six publications were included. Publications were grouped into five domains: measurement of sound levels; sources of sound; patient impacts; sound reduction interventions including care bundles incorporating sound descriptions; and other. Reported sound levels varied substantially across studies, reflecting heterogeneity in measurement approaches and clinical contexts. Most studies reported sound levels above WHO recommendations, and several reported maximum levels exceeding 80 dBA. Sound sources were broadly categorised as medical equipment, human activity, and environmental factors. Links between elevated sound and clinically meaningful outcomes remain uncertain. Intervention studies were limited, often behaviour-focused, and rarely evaluated patient-centred outcomes or clinical sustainability. Current evidence suggests WHO recommended sound levels are rarely achieved. The sound environment in the PICU is multifaceted, reflecting the interaction of clinical equipment, human activity, and environmental systems. There is a need for interventional research to evaluate whether modification of the PICU sound environment meaningfully improves patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, PediatricNoiseSoundChildHumansauditory stimulationcritical carehospitalised childnoisesound

Identifiers

PMID42728742
PMCPMC13671254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.