4.3 Review

Occupational Noise and Hypertension Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176281

Keywords

noise; work; occupation; arterial hypertension; systematic review; meta-analysis; dose response relationship; blood pressure

Funding

  1. Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services (BGW)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A number of epidemiological studies report an association between occupational noise exposure and arterial hypertension. Existing systematic reviews report conflicting results, so we conducted an updated systematic review with meta-analysis. We registered the review protocol with PROSPERO (registration no.: CRD 42019147923) and searched for observational epidemiological studies in literature databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science). Two independent reviewers screened the titles/abstracts and full texts of the studies. Two reviewers also did the quality assessment and data extraction. Studies without adequate information on recruitment, response, or without a comparison group that was exposed to occupational noise under 80 dB(A) were excluded. The literature search yielded 4583 studies, and 58 studies were found through hand searching. Twenty-four studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis found a pooled effect size (ES) for hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure >= 140/90 mmHg) due to noise exposures >= 80 dB(A) of 1.81 (95% CI 1.51-2.18). There is no substantial risk difference between men and women, but data concerning this question are limited. We found a positive dose-response-relationship: ES = 1.21 (95% CI 0.78-1.87) <= 80 dB(A), ES = 1.77 (95% CI 1.36-2.29) > 80-<= 85 dB(A), and ES = 3.50 (95% CI 1.56-7.86) > 85-<= 90 dB(A). We found high quality of evidence that occupational noise exposure increases the risk of hypertension.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available