Table 2.
Overview of the selected articles on hearing loss and high-frequency audiometry in populations exposed to workplace noise.
| Author, Year | Number of Respondents and Study Design |
Age Range (Years) and Groups | City, Country | Audiometry and Frequency Range (kHz) | Audiometer Type | Headphones | Objective | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maccá et al., 2014 [27] |
24 EG ultrasound (2 men and 22 women), 113 EG (93 men and 20 women) 148 CG (62 men and 86 women). Study design unknown. |
15–59 Age groups: 15–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59. Ears not distinguished. Not divided by gender. |
Padua, Italy |
CA 0.125–8 HFA 9–18 |
Labat Audiopack audiometer |
CA: Standard headphones HFA: Sennheiser, HD 500 |
Investigate the effects of age, ultrasound and noise on high-frequency hearing thresholds. | After stratification for age, there was a significantly higher hearing threshold in EG than CG at 9–10 and 14–15 kHz only for those under 30 years of age. |
| Mehrparvar et al., 2014 [22] |
142 EG 121 CG Only men. Cross-sectional, prospective study. |
<50 1 age group. Left and right ears. Only men. |
City unknown, Iran |
CA 0.5–8 HFA 10–16 |
Interacoustic AC40 | CA: TDH 39 HFA. Koss R/80 |
Compare three methods of assessing hearing loss due to noise (HFA, CA, DPOAE) | The most commonly affected frequencies with statistically significantly higher hearing thresholds in EG compared with CG were 4 and 6 kHz in CA and 14 and 16 kHz in HFA. HFA was the most sensitive test for detection of hearing loss in workers exposed to >85 dBA noise. |
| Mehrparvar et al., 2011 [28] |
120 EG (108 men and 12 women) 120 CG (106 men and 14 women). Historic cohort. |
<50 1 age group. Left and right ears. Not divided by gender. |
City unknown, Iran |
CA 0.250–8 HFA 10–16 |
Interacoustic AC40 | CA: TDH 39 HFA: Koss R/80 |
Compare thresholds with both CA and HFA in both ears in exposed and unexposed individuals to assess the efficiency of the methods when revealing hearing loss. | Statistically significantly higher mean hearing thresholds in EG compared with CG were found at 4, 6 and 16 kHz, with the most significant differences found at 16 kHz in both ears. |
| Ma et al., 2018 [23] |
134 EG 101 CG Only men. Cross-sectional study. |
20–59 Age groups: 20–29, 30–39, 40–49 50–59. Ears not distinguished. Only men. |
City unknown, China |
CA 0.250–8 HFA 9–20 |
Madsen Conera |
CA: TDH–39 HFA: Sennheiser HDA 200 |
Investigate the usefulness of HFA as an assessment test of the hearing statuses of civilian pilots. | Statistically significantly higher mean hearing thresholds in EG compared with CG were found at most of the high frequencies tested. In particular, the largest differences between hearing thresholds were found at 16 kHz for subjects aged 20–29 and 30–39, at 12.5 kHz for those aged 40–49 years old and at 10 kHz for those aged 50–59 years old. |
| Ahmed et al., 2001 [24] |
187 EG 52 CG Only men. Cross-sectional study. |
Undefined–44 Age groups: <25, 25–34, 35–44. Ears not distinguished. Only men. |
City unknown, Saudi Arabia |
CA 0.250-8 HFA 10–18 |
Interacoustics AS10HF | CA: Koss HV-1A HFA: TDH-50P |
Investigate the reliability and effects of age and noise on HFA hearing thresholds. | A multivariate analysis showed that the primary indicator of the hearing threshold at high frequencies is age, and noise exposure is a secondary predictor of hearing thresholds at high frequencies (10–18 kHz). |
| Somma et al., 2008 [25] |
84 EG 98 CG Only men. Study design unknown. |
21–60 Age groups: 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60. Ears not distinguished. Only men. |
City unknown, Italy |
CA 0.250-8 HFA 9–18 |
Amplaid A319, Amplifon | CA: TDH-49 HFA: Sennheiser HDA 200 |
Compare HFA and CA to assess thresholds among workers exposed to workplace noise. | Statistically significantly higher hearing thresholds between EG and CG were found for those aged 21–30 years old at all frequencies (9–18 kHz) and for those aged 31–40 years old at frequencies of 9–14 kHz. |
| Korres et al., 2008 [29] |
139 EG (68 men and 53 women) 32 CG (18 men and 14 women). Study design unknown. |
24–55 1 age group. Left and right ears. Not divided by gender. |
City unknown, Greece |
CA 0.250-8 HFA 9–20 |
Amplaid 321, Twinchannel | CA: TDH-49 HFA: Sennheiser HDA 200 |
Evaluate hearing in industrial workers exposed to workplace noise using CA and HFA and compare it with CG. | Statistically significantly higher hearing thresholds between EG and CG were found at 4–18 kHz, especially at 12.5–18 kHz. A statistically significant correlation between an increased duration of exposure and higher hearing thresholds was found at all frequencies except for 10 kHz. |
| Rocha et al., 2010 [26] |
47 EG 33 CG Only men. Cross-sectional, retrospective cohort study. |
30–49 Age groups: 30–39, 40–49. Ears not distinguished. Only men. |
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | CA 0.250-8 HFA 9–20 |
Interacoustic AC40 | CA: TDH-39P HFA: Koss HV/PRO |
Analysis of HFA results in people exposed to noise with normal results for CA. | The EG had a statistically significantly higher hearing threshold than CG at 16 kHz in participants aged 30–39 years. The results were most significant in the 40–49 years age group, where EG showed significantly higher hearing thresholds than CG at 14 and 16 kHz. |
| Goncalves et al., 2015 [30] |
40 EG (10 men and 32 women) CG 40 Historic cohort study. |
23–61 1 age group. Left and right ears. Divided by gender. |
Curitiba, Brazil | CA 0.5–8 HFA 9–16 |
Madsen Itera II, GN Otometrics |
CA: Standard HFA: Sennheiser HDA 200 |
Use HFA to evaluate hearing among dentists exposed to workplace noise for varying durations. | Statistically significantly higher hearing thresholds in EG compared with CG were observed at 0.5, 1, 6 and 8 kHz in the right ear. No differences were observed between the EG and CG for high frequencies. |
| Antonioli et al., 2016 [31] |
Exposed workers and unexposed people. Both genders. Systematic review, meta–analysis. |
18–60 Different age groups. Ears not distinguished. Not divided by gender. 6 studies |
Many countries | CA 0.250–8 HFA 10–20 |
Interacoustics AS10HF; Amplaid A3 19; Amplaid A321; Interacoustic AC 40; Siemens SD50; GSI 61 |
HFA: Koss R/80; HDA200; R80; HDA200; HD 200; TDH-39p |
Retrospective and secondary systematic revision of publications using HFA to monitor the hearing of workers exposed to workplace noise. | At 16 kHz, HFA is sensitive enough for the early detection of hearing loss. This is true for 4 kHz as well, but the outcome is not as significant. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm the importance of HFA for the early detection of hearing loss in people exposed to workplace noise. |
HFA = high-frequency audiometry; CA = convectional pure tone audiometry; NIHL = noise-induced hearing loss; EG = group exposed to workplace noise; CG = control group without exposure to workplace noise; and DPOAE = distortion product otoacoustic emissions.