Cochrane · systematic review · CD006396

Interventions to prevent occupational noise‐induced hearing loss

Tikka, C, Verbeek, JH, Kateman, E, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library

Work3 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
10
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 60%Low 1 · 10%Moderate 3 · 30%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Show all 3 versions

Stricter legislation for noise exposure

Population: workers with noise exposure
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Immediate change in level in year 2000 (noise level at work as PEL dose in dB(A); range 0 to 6400, log scale)
no estimate extractedNRVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Change in slope after introduction (noise level at work as PEL dose in dB(A); range 0 to 6400, log scale)
no estimate extractedNRVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Earplugs with instruction versus without instruction (noise exposure)

Population: workers with exposure to noise
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Mean noise attenuation over 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 kHz (dB) Immediate
Earplugs with instruction vs without instruction (noise exposure)
no estimate extracted2 studies · 140 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision

Training plus exposure information compared to training (noise exposure)

Population: workers exposed to noise
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Change in noise levels at 4 months'
Training plus exposure information vs training (noise exposure)
no estimate extracted1 study · 176 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Earmuffs versus earplugs (hearing loss)

Population: workers exposed to 88‐94 dB(A)
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Hearing loss change over 3 years (4 kHz/STS)
Earmuffs vs earplugs (hearing loss)
OR 0.8 [0.63, 1.03]3242 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias

Hearing loss prevention programme compared to audiometric testing (hearing loss)

Population: agricultural students without hearing loss
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Hearing loss STS ≥ 10 dB loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear
Hearing loss prevention programme vs audiometric testing (hearing loss)
OR 0.85 [0.29, 2.44]1 study · 687 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias
Hearing loss STS ≥ 10 dB hearing loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear
Hearing loss prevention programme vs audiometric testing (hearing loss)
OR 0.94 [0.46, 1.91]1 study · 355 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias

Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) with exposure information compared to HLPP without exposure information (hearing loss)

Population: workers exposed to noise
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Annual increase in hearing threshold (dB/year at 2,3 and 4 kHz)
Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) with exposure information vs HLPP without exposure information (hearing loss)
no estimate extracted312 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias

Well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) compared to less well‐implemented HLPP (hearing loss)

Population: workers
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Hearing loss STS > 10 dB change average over 2, 3 and 4 kHz1
Well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) vs less well‐implemented HLPP (hearing loss)
OR 0.4 [0.23, 0.69]3 studies · 16301 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias

Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) compared to non‐exposed workers (hearing loss)

Population: workers
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Hearing loss Change in hearing threshold at 4 kHz in dB
Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) vs non‐exposed workers (hearing loss)
no estimate extracted3 studies · 1846 participantsVery low