4.5 Article

Asymmetric Hearing Loss in Chinese Workers Exposed to Complex Noise

期刊

EAR AND HEARING
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 189-193

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000236

关键词

Occupational noise; Asymmetry; Asymmetric hearing loss; Noise-induced hearing loss

资金

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [1-R01-OH-002317]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Evaluate the audiometric asymmetry in Chinese industrial workers and investigate the effects of noise exposure, sex, and binaural average thresholds on audiometric asymmetry. Design: Data collected from Chinese industrial workers during a cross-sectional study were reanalyzed. Of the 1388 workers, 266 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Each subject underwent a physical examination and an otologic examination and completed a health-related questionnaire. chi(2) and t tests were used to examine the differences between the asymmetric and symmetric hearing loss groups. Results: One hundred thirty-one subjects (49.2%) had a binaural hearing threshold difference of 15 dB or more for at least one frequency, and there was no statistically significant difference between the left and right ears. The asymmetric hearing loss group was not exposed to higher cumulative noise levels (t = 0.522, p = 0.602), and there was no dose-response relation between asymmetry and cumulative noise levels (chi(2) = 6.502, p = 0.165). Men were 1.849 times more likely to have asymmetry than women were (95% confidence interval, 1.051 to 3.253). Among the workers with higher high-frequency hearing thresholds, audiometric asymmetry was 1.024 times more prevalent than that among those with lower high-frequency hearing thresholds (95% confidence interval, 1.004 to 1.044). Conclusions: The results indicated that occupational noise exposure contributed minimally to asymmetry, whereas sex and binaural average thresholds significantly affected audiometric asymmetry. There was no evidence that the left ears were worse than the right ears.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据