Comparison of Occupational Noise Exposure Assessment Methods: A Systematic Review.

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review of publications was to evaluate existing evidence on the accuracy and precision of alternative occupational noise assessment methods, with personal noise dosimetry as the reference. A structured literature search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Embase in July 2021 and 2022. The Covidence software was used for importing articles, screening titles and abstracts, full-text review, and study selection. Two reviewers independently conducted the title, abstract, and full-text screening of eligible studies. The reporting of this systematic review was guided by the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The quality of selected articles was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. In total, 11 studies consistent with the study selection criteria were identified out of 327 articles from the initial search. The noise-measurement methods identified in the selected studies included subjective rating through a questionnaire, expert opinion, smartwatch, sound level meter, sound level meter combined with a radio-frequency identification system, smart devices, workgroup dosimetry sampling, task-based measurement (TBM), and hybrid TBM. The hybrid method (a combination of task-based, subjective rating, and trade mean measurements) was the best alternative to full-shift personal noise-dosimetry with a negligible bias of 0.1 dB, precision of 2.4 dBA, and accuracy of 2.4 dBA. A variety of lower-cost TBM methods had relatively high accuracy and precision levels comparable to personal dosimetry. These findings are particularly relevant for low-income countries where occupational noise measurements should be obtained with minimal work disruptions and costs. However, it should also be noted that TBMs are greatly affected by job variation, multiple tasks, or mobile tasks.