Effectiveness of hearing protector devices in impulse noise verified with transiently evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions

Auditory changes following firearm noise exposure, a review

Firearms produce peak sound pressure levels (peak SPL) between ∼130 and 175 dB peak SPL, creating significant risk of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) in those exposed to firearm noise during occupational, recreational, and/or military operations. Noise-induced tinnitus and hearing loss are common in military service members, public safety officers, and hunters/shooters. Given the significant risk of NIHL due to firearm and other noise sources, there is an interest in, and demand for, interventions to prevent and/or treat NIHL in high-risk populations. However, research and clinical trial designs assessing NIHL prevention have varied due to inconsistent data from the literature, specifically with end point definitions, study protocols, and assessment methodologies. This article presents a scoping review of the literature pertaining to auditory changes following firearm noise exposure. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the study designs. Recommendations regarding audiologic test approach and monitoring of populations at risk for NIHL are presented based on critical review of the existing literature.

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2009. Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing disorders. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL; PubMed; Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH UPDATE to 3 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical interventions under field conditions among workers to prevent or reduce noise exposure and hearing loss. We also collected uncontrolled case studies of engineering controls about the effect on noise exposure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. We categorised interventions as engineering controls, administrative controls, personal hearing protection devices, and hearing surveillance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies. One study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis but there were no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure. Eleven studies with 3725 participants evaluated effects of personal hearing protection devices and 17 studies with 84,028 participants evaluated effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs). Effects on noise exposure Engineering interventions following legislationOne ITS study found that new legislation in the mining industry reduced the median personal noise exposure dose in underground coal mining by 27.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI) -36.1 to -19.3 percentage points) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation. This roughly translates to a 4.5 dB(A) decrease in noise level. The intervention was associated with a favourable but statistically non-significant downward trend in time of the noise dose of -2.1 percentage points per year (95% CI -4.9 to 0.7, 4 year follow-up, very low-quality evidence). Engineering intervention case studiesWe found 12 studies that described 107 uncontrolled case studies of immediate reductions in noise levels of machinery ranging from 11.1 to 19.7 dB(A) as a result of purchasing new equipment, segregating noise sources or installing panels or curtains around sources. However, the studies lacked long-term follow-up and dose measurements of workers, and we did not use these studies for our conclusions. Hearing protection devicesIn general hearing protection devices reduced noise exposure on average by about 20 dB(A) in one RCT and three CBAs (57 participants, low-quality evidence). Two RCTs showed that, with instructions for insertion, the attenuation of noise by earplugs was 8.59 dB better (95% CI 6.92 dB to 10.25 dB) compared to no instruction (2 RCTs, 140 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Administrative controls: information and noise exposure feedbackOn-site training sessions did not have an effect on personal noise-exposure levels compared to information only in one cluster-RCT after four months' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0.14 dB; 95% CI -2.66 to 2.38). Another arm of the same study found that personal noise exposure information had no effect on noise levels (MD 0.30 dB(A), 95% CI -2.31 to 2.91) compared to no such information (176 participants, low-quality evidence). Effects on hearing loss Hearing protection devicesIn two studies the authors compared the effect of different devices on temporary threshold shifts at short-term follow-up but reported insufficient data for analysis. In two CBA studies the authors found no difference in hearing loss from noise exposure above 89 dB(A) between muffs and earplugs at long-term follow-up (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03 ), very low-quality evidence). Authors of another CBA study found that wearing hearing protection more often resulted in less hearing loss at very long-term follow-up (very low-quality evidence). Combination of interventions: hearing loss prevention programmesOne cluster-RCT found no difference in hearing loss at three- or 16-year follow-up between an intensive HLPP for agricultural students and audiometry only. One CBA study found no reduction of the rate of hearing loss (MD -0.82 dB per year (95% CI -1.86 to 0.22) for a HLPP that provided regular personal noise exposure information compared to a programme without this information.There was very-low-quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of hearing protection devices as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.In three long-term CBA studies, workers in a HLPP had a statistically non-significant 1.8 dB (95% CI -0.6 to 4.2) greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than non-exposed workers and the confidence interval includes the 4.2 dB which is the level of hearing loss resulting from 5 years of exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, of three other CBA studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis, two showed an increased risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers and one CBA did not.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very low-quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Controlled studies of other engineering control interventions in the field have not been conducted. There is moderate-quality evidence that training of proper insertion of earplugs significantly reduces noise exposure at short-term follow-up but long-term follow-up is still needed.There is very low-quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. Rather, it means that further research is very likely to have an important impact.

Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss

BACKGROUND

Millions of workers worldwide are exposed to noise levels that increase their risk of hearing impairment. Little is known about the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions for preventing occupational noise exposure or occupational hearing loss compared to no intervention or alternative interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; and OSH update to 25 January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), controlled before-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time-series (ITS) of non-clinical hearing loss prevention interventions under field conditions among workers exposed to noise.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies. We found no controlled studies on engineering controls for noise exposure but one study evaluated legislation to reduce noise exposure in a 12-year time-series analysis. Eight studies with 3,430 participants evaluated immediate and long-term effects of personal hearing protection devices (HPDs) and sixteen studies with 82,794 participants evaluated short and long-term effects of hearing loss prevention programmes (HLPPs). The overall quality of studies was low to very low.The one ITS study that evaluated the effect of new legislation in reducing noise exposure found that the median noise level decreased by 27.7 dB(A) (95% confidence interval (CI) -36.1 to -19.3 dB) immediately after the implementation of stricter legislation and that this was associated with a favourable downward trend in time of -2.1 dB per year (95% CI -4.9 to 0.7).Hearing protection devices attenuated noise with about 20 dB(A) with variation among brands and types but for ear plugs these findings depended almost completely on proper instruction of insertion. Noise attenuation ratings of hearing protection under field conditions were consistently lower than the ratings provided by the manufacturers.One cluster-RCT compared a three-year information campaign as part of a hearing loss prevention programme for agricultural students to audiometry only with three and 16-year follow-up but there were no significant differences in hearing loss. Another study compared a HLPP, which provided regular personal noise exposure information, to a programme without this information in a CBA design. Exposure information was associated with a favourable but non-significant reduction of the rate of hearing loss of -0.82 dB per year (95% CI -1.86 to 0.22). Another cluster-RCT evaluated the effect of extensive on-site training sessions and the use of personal noise-level indicators versus information only on noise levels but did not find a significant difference after four months follow-up (Mean Difference (MD) -0.30 dB(A) (95%CI -3.95 to 3.35).There was very low quality evidence in four very long-term studies, that better use of HPDs as part of a HLPP decreased the risk of hearing loss compared to less well used hearing protection in HLPPs. Other aspects of the HLPP such as training and education of workers or engineering controls did not show a similar effect.In four long-term studies, workers in a HLPP still had a 0.5 dB greater hearing loss at 4 kHz than workers that were not exposed to noise (95% CI -0.5 to 1.7) which is about the level of hearing loss caused by exposure to 85 dB(A). In addition, two other studies showed substantial risk of hearing loss in spite of the protection of a HLPP compared to non-exposed workers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence that implementation of stricter legislation can reduce noise levels in workplaces. Even though case studies show that substantial reductions in noise levels in the workplace can be achieved, there are no controlled studies of the effectiveness of such measures. The effectiveness of hearing protection devices depends on training and their proper use. There is very low quality evidence that the better use of hearing protection devices as part of HLPPs reduces the risk of hearing loss, whereas for other programme components of HLPPs we did not find such an effect. Better implementation and reinforcement of HLPPs is needed. Better evaluations of technical interventions and long-term effects are needed.

Post-processing analysis of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions to detect 4 kHz-notch hearing impairment--a pilot study

Background

To identify a parameter to distinguish normal hearing from hearing impairment in the early stages. The parameter was obtained from transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), overcoming the limitations of the usually adopted waveform descriptive parameters which may fail in standard clinical screenings.

Material/Methods

Audiometric examinations and TEOAE analysis were conducted on 15 normal ears and on 14 hearing-impaired ears that exhibited an audiometric notch around 4 kHz. TEOAE signals were analyzed through a multivariate technique to filter out the individual variability and to highlight the dynamic structure of the signals. The new parameter (named radius 2-dimension – RAD2D) was defined and evaluated for simulated TEOAE signals modeling a different amount of hearing impairment.

Results

Audiometric examinations indicated 14 ears as impaired-hearing (IH), while the TEOAE ILO92 whole reproducibility parameter (WWR) indicated as IH 7 signals out of 14 (50%). The proposed new parameter indicated as IH 9 signals out of 14 (64%), reducing the number of false negative cases of WWR.

Conclusions

In this preliminary study there is evidence that the new parameter RAD2D defines the topology and the quantification of the damage in the inner ear. The proposed protocol can be useful in hearing screenings to identify hearing impairments much earlier than conventional pure tone audiometry and TEOAE pass/fail test.

Avaliação da colocação de protetores auriculares em grupos com e sem treinamento

OBJETIVO: analisar a eficácia da colocação de diferentes protetores auriculares em sujeitos treinados e não-treinados e verificar a importância e a necessidade da realização de um treinamento para a colocação adequada do Equipamento de Proteção Individual auricular. MÉTODOS: investigou-se a atenuação de quatro modelos diferentes de protetores auriculares (inserção de espuma, inserção de silicone três flanges, inserção oliva e tipo concha) por meio de duas estratégias: audiometria em campo livre e medidas com microfone sonda, com e sem protetor auricular para comparação e determinação da vedação de ruído. Avaliou-se dois grupos, Grupo 1, sujeitos que receberam treinamento e orientação em relação ao uso e colocação do EPI auricular (23) e o Grupo 2, sujeitos não-treinados (8) universitários que nunca utilizaram o EPI auricular. RESULTADOS: no grupo 1, as diferenças dos limiares auditivos sem e com protetor auricular avaliadas pelos dois métodos apresentaram, em geral, valores de atenuação superiores ao do grupo 2. O protetor auricular concha apresentou valores médios de atenuação superiores aos demais tipos; e o protetor auricular oliva apresentou valores menores. CONCLUSÃO: o treinamento quanto ao uso dos protetores auriculares é necessário e deve ser incluído nos Programa de Conservação Auditiva (PCA).