Liliane R Teixeira1, Frank Pega2, Wagner de Abreu3, Marcia S de Almeida4, Carlos A F de Andrade5, Tatiana M Azevedo6, Angel M Dzhambov7, Weijiang Hu8, Marta R V Macedo9, Martha S Martínez-Silveira10, Xin Sun11, Meibian Zhang12, Siyu Zhang13, Denise T Correa da Silva14. 1. Workers' Health and Human Ecology Research Center, National School of Public Health Sergio Arouca, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: lilianeteixeira@ensp.fiocruz.br. 2. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: pegaf@who.int. 3. Workers' Health and Human Ecology Research Center, National School of Public Health Sergio Arouca, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: abreu.wagner41@gmail.com. 4. Workers' Health and Human Ecology Research Center, National School of Public Health Sergio Arouca, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: soalheir@ensp.fiocruz.br. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Quantitative Methods in Health, National School of Public Health Sergio Arouca, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil; School of Medicine, Universidade de Vassouras, Vassouras, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: carlos.andrade@ensp.fiocruz.br. 6. Workers' State Secretariat of Health, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil; State Reference Center in Workers' Health, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: tamaze@gmail.com. 7. Department of Hygiene, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Institute for Highway Engineering and Transport Planning, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria. Electronic address: angelleloti@gmail.com. 8. National Institute for Occupational Health and Poison Control, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: huwj@niohp.chinacdc.cn. 9. Workers' Health Coordination, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: mribeiro@fiocruz.br. 10. Gonçalo Moniz Institute, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Salvador, BA, Brazil. Electronic address: martha.silveira@gmail.com. 11. National Institute for Occupational Health and Poison Control, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: sunxin@niohp.chinacdc.cn. 12. Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: mbzhang@cdc.zj.cn. 13. National Institute for Occupational Health and Poison Control, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: zhangsy@niohp.chinacdc.cn. 14. Workers' Health and Human Ecology Research Center, National School of Public Health Sergio Arouca, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: denisetorreao@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I2 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic and human data suggests that occupational exposure to noise may cause cardiovascular disease. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from cardiovascular disease that are attributable to exposure to this risk factor, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference list of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts. STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA: We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economies in any WHO Member and/or ILO member State, but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with an estimate of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise, categorized into two levels: no (low) occupational exposure to noise (<85dBA) and any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA). STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates using random-effect meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence, using the RoB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies (56 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising 157,370 participants (15,369 females) across 28 countries and all six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South-East Asia, and Western Pacific). For the main analyses, we prioritized the four included studies that surveyed national probability samples of general populations of workers over the 58 studies of workers in industrial sectors and/or occupations with relatively high occupational exposure to noise. The exposure was generally assessed with dosimetry, sound level meter, or official or company records; in the population-based studies, it was assessed with validated questions. Estimates of the prevalence of occupational exposure to noise are presented for all 65 included studies, by country, sex, 5-year age group, industrial sector, and occupation where feasible. The pooled prevalence of any (high) occupational exposure to noise (≥85dBA) among the general population of workers was 0.17 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.19, 4 studies, 108,256 participants, 38 countries, two WHO regions, I2 98%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that pooled prevalence differed substantially by WHO region, sex, industrial sector, and occupation. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found that occupational exposure to noise is prevalent among general populations of workers. The current body of evidence is, however, of low quality, due to serious concerns for risk of bias and indirectness. Producing estimates of occupational exposure to noise nevertheless appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review are suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates (if feasible). Protocol identifier: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.040 PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092272.
Authors: Elena A Zhidkova; Ekaterina M Gutor; Inga A Popova; Victoria A Zaborova; Kira Kryuchkova; Konstantin G Gurevich; Natella I Krikheli; Katie M Heinrich Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Virginia Puyana-Romero; Jose Luis Cueto; Giuseppe Ciaburro; Luis Bravo-Moncayo; Ricardo Hernandez-Molina Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Frank Pega; Natalie C Momen; Diana Gagliardi; Lisa A Bero; Fabio Boccuni; Nicholas Chartres; Alexis Descatha; Angel M Dzhambov; Lode Godderis; Tom Loney; Daniele Mandrioli; Alberto Modenese; Henk F van der Molen; Rebecca L Morgan; Subas Neupane; Daniela Pachito; Marilia S Paulo; K C Prakash; Paul T J Scheepers; Liliane Teixeira; Thomas Tenkate; Tracey J Woodruff; Susan L Norris Journal: Environ Int Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Natalie C Momen; Kai N Streicher; Denise T C da Silva; Alexis Descatha; Monique H W Frings-Dresen; Diana Gagliardi; Lode Godderis; Tom Loney; Daniele Mandrioli; Alberto Modenese; Rebecca L Morgan; Daniela Pachito; Paul T J Scheepers; Daria Sgargi; Marília Silva Paulo; Vivi Schlünssen; Grace Sembajwe; Kathrine Sørensen; Liliane R Teixeira; Thomas Tenkate; Frank Pega Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Liliane R Teixeira; Frank Pega; Angel M Dzhambov; Alicja Bortkiewicz; Denise T Correa da Silva; Carlos A F de Andrade; Elzbieta Gadzicka; Kishor Hadkhale; Sergio Iavicoli; Martha S Martínez-Silveira; Małgorzata Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska; Bruna M Rondinone; Jadwiga Siedlecka; Antonio Valenti; Diana Gagliardi Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 9.621