Table A38.
Summary of findings table for the association between aircraft noise exposure and the prevalence of diabetes.
| Question | Does Exposure to Aircraft Noise Increase the Risk of Diabetes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People | Adult population (men and women) | |||
| Setting | Residential setting: people living in cities located around airports in The Netherlands | |||
| Outcome | The prevalence of diabetes | |||
| Summary of findings | RR per 10 dB increase in aircraft noise level (LDEN) | 1.01 (95% CI: 0.78–1.31) | ||
| Number of participants (# studies) | 9365 (1) | |||
| Number of cases | 89 | |||
| Rating | Adjustment to Rating | |||
| Quality assessment | Starting rating | 1 cross-sectional study # | 2 (low) | |
| Factors decreasing confidence | Risk of bias | Serious a | Downgrading | |
| Inconsistency | NA b | No downgrading | ||
| Indirectness | None c | No downgrading | ||
| Imprecision | Serious d | Downgrading | ||
| Publication bias | NA e | No downgrading | ||
| Factors increasing confidence | Strength of association | Small f | No upgrading | |
| Exposure-response gradient | Evidence of a non- significant exposure-response gradient f | No upgrading | ||
| Possible confounding | No conclusions can be drawn g | No upgrading | ||
| Overall judgement of quality of evidence | 0 (very low) h | |||
# Since only one cross-sectional study was available, we started with a grading of “low” (2); a The response rates was below 60%. Diabetes was ascertained by means of a questionnaire only; the study was not able to adjust for smoking; b Since only one study is available, this criterion is not applicable; c The study assessed population, exposure and outcome of interest; d We considered the results to be imprecise: The number of cases was small, and the 95% CI was not sufficiently narrow; e Since the results of only one study were available it was not possible to test for publication bias or small study bias; f The evaluated study found that the risk of diabetes increased when air traffic noise level increased (RR per 10 dB > 1). There was evidence of a non-significant exposure-response gradient: we found a non-significant effect size of 1.01 per 10 dB. The noise range of the studies under evaluation was 30–65 dB. this means that if the air traffic noise level increases from 30 to 65 dB, the RR = 1.04; g We were not able to draw any conclusions whether possible residual confounders or biases would reduce our effect estimate; h We graded overall quality of the evidence to be “very low” (0). Despite the fact that only one study was available, it was not useful to downgrade the overall quality of evidence.