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
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
Current version onlyStricter legislation for noise exposure
Population: workers with noise exposure
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 extracted | NR | Very 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 extracted | NR | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Earplugs with instruction versus without instruction (noise exposure)
Population: workers with exposure to noise
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 extracted | 2 studies · 140 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Training plus exposure information compared to training (noise exposure)
Population: workers exposed to noise
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Change in noise levels at 4 months' Training plus exposure information vs training (noise exposure) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 176 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Earmuffs versus earplugs (hearing loss)
Population: workers exposed to 88‐94 dB(A)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hearing loss change over 3 years (4 kHz/STS) Earmuffs vs earplugs (hearing loss) | OR 0.8 [0.63, 1.03] | 3242 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hearing loss prevention programme compared to audiometric testing (hearing loss)
Population: agricultural students without hearing loss
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 participants | Moderate 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 participants | Moderate 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
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 extracted | 312 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) compared to less well‐implemented HLPP (hearing loss)
Population: workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hearing loss prevention programme (HLPP) compared to non‐exposed workers (hearing loss)
Population: workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / 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 extracted | 3 studies · 1846 participants | Very low |
Hearing loss prevention programme compared to audiometric testing (agriculture students, long‐term, 3‐years and 16‐years follow‐up) ‐ RCT for
Population: patients with hearing loss
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hearing Loss STS = > 10 dB loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHz in either ear Hearing loss prevention programme vs audiometric testing (agriculture students, long‐term, 3‐years and 16‐years follow‐up) ‐ RCT for | OR 0.85 [0.29, 2.44] | 1 study · 687 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Hearing Loss STS = > 10 dB hearing loss average over 2, 3, 4 kHZ in either ear Hearing loss prevention programme vs audiometric testing (agriculture students, long‐term, 3‐years and 16‐years follow‐up) ‐ RCT for | OR 0.94 [0.46, 1.91] | 1 study · 355 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme compared to Less well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme for Hearing Loss
Population: patients with Hearing Loss
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hearing Loss STS > 10 dB change average over 2, 3 and 4 KHz1 Well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme vs Less well‐implemented hearing loss prevention programme | OR 0.4 [0.23, 0.69] | 3 studies · 16302 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hearing loss prevention programme compared to non‐exposed workers
Population: patients with Hearing Loss
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hearing Loss Change in hearing threshold at 4 KHz Hearing loss prevention programme vs non‐exposed workers | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 2231 participants | Very low |
Summary of findings table
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Legislation to decrease noise exposure | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
[1.1 ‐ 2.2] HLPP versus non‐exposed workers, hearing loss | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
[3.1 ‐ 4.1] Well‐implemented HLPP versus not well‐implemented programmes, hearing loss | no estimate extracted | NR | Low |
[5] Earmuffs versus earplugs, hearing loss | no estimate extracted | NR | Very low |
[8] Instructions vs no instructions for fitting; noise reduction | no estimate extracted | NR | High |