WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Adverse Birth Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Three recent systematic reviews suggested a relationship between noise exposure and adverse birth outcomes. The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence for the World Health Organization (WHO) noise guidelines and conduct an updated systematic review of environmental noise, specifically aircraft and road traffic noise and birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, being small for gestational age and congenital malformations. Materials and methods: We reviewed again all the papers on environmental noise and birth outcomes included in the previous three systematic reviews and conducted a systematic search on noise and birth outcomes to update previous reviews. Web of Science, PubMed and Embase electronic databases were searched for papers published between June 2014 (end date of previous systematic review) and December 2016 using a list of specific search terms. Studies were also screened in the reference list of relevant reviews/articles. Further inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies provided by the WHO expert group were applied. Risk of bias was assessed according to criteria from the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for case-control and cohort studies. Finally, we applied the GRADE principles to our systematic review in a reproducible and appropriate way for judgment about quality of evidence. Results: In total, 14 studies are included in this review, six studies on aircraft noise and birth outcomes, five studies (two with more or less the same population) on road traffic noise and birth outcomes and three related studies on total ambient noise that is likely to be mostly traffic noise that met the criteria. The number of studies on environmental noise and birth outcomes is small and the quality of evidence generally ranges from very low to low, particularly in case of the older studies. The quality is better for the more recent traffic noise and birth outcomes studies. As there were too few studies, we did not conduct meta-analyses. Discussion: This systematic review is supported by previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses that suggested that there may be some suggestive evidence for an association between environmental noise exposure and birth outcomes, although they pointed more generally to a stronger role of occupational noise exposure, which tends to be higher and last longer. Very strict criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies, performance of quality assessment for risk of bias, and finally applying GRADE principles for judgment of quality of evidence are the strengths of this review. Conclusions: We found evidence of very low quality for associations between aircraft noise and preterm birth, low birth weight and congenital anomalies, and low quality evidence for an association between road traffic noise and low birth weight, preterm birth and small for gestational age. Further high quality studies are required to establish such associations. Future studies are recommended to apply robust exposure assessment methods (e.g., modeled or measured noise levels at bedroom façade), disentangle associations for different sources of noise as well as daytime and nighttime noise, evaluate the impacts of noise evens (that stand out of the noise background), and control the analyses for confounding factors, such as socioeconomic status, lifestyle factors and other environmental factors, especially air pollution.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,046 | 0,133 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,021 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».