Environmental noise exposure and health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Environmental noise is becoming increasingly recognized as an urgent public health problem, but the quality of current studies needs to be assessed. To evaluate the significance, validity and potential biases of the associations between environmental noise exposure and health outcomes. We conducted an umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of environmental noise exposure and any health outcomes. A systematic search was done until November 2021. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and references of eligible studies were searched. Quality was assessed by AMSTAR and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Of the 31 unique health outcomes identified in 23 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, environmental noise exposure was more likely to result in a series of adverse outcomes. Five percent were moderate in methodology quality, the rest were low to very low and the majority of GRADE evidence was graded as low or even lower. The group with occupational noise exposure had the largest risk increment of speech frequency [relative risk (RR): 6.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.41-13.07] and high-frequency (RR: 4.46; 95% CI: 2.80-7.11) noise-induced hearing loss. High noise exposure from different sources was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (34%) and its mortality (12%), elevated blood pressure (58-72%), diabetes (23%) and adverse reproductive outcomes (22-43%). In addition, the dose-response relationship revealed that the risk of diabetes, ischemic heart disease (IHD), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, anxiety and depression increases with increasing noise exposure. Adverse associations were found for CV disease and mortality, diabetes, hearing impairment, neurological disorders and adverse reproductive outcomes with environmental noise exposure in humans, especially occupational noise. The studies mostly showed low quality and more high-quality longitudinal study designs are needed for further validation in the future.