Table 3.
Summary of findings for noise exposure and hypertension
| Outcomes | Relative or absolute effects(95% CI) | No. of participants(studies) | Certainty of the evidence(GRADE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypertension – cross-sectional assessed with: exposure to road traffic noise | RR* 1.09 (1.03–1.14) | 89,668(8 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW † |
| Hypertension – cohort/case-control assessed with: exposure to road traffic noise | RR* 1.01(0.99 to 1.03) | 1,201,170(5 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW ‡,$ |
| Hypertension – cross-sectional assessed with: exposure to air traffic noise | RR* 1.03(1.00 to 1.06) | 10,607(2 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW $,|| |
| Hypertension – cohort/case-control assessed with: exposure to air traffic noise | RR* 1.10(0.95 to 1.27) | 498,442(3 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW $,¶ |
| Hypertension – cross-sectional assessed with: exposure to occupational noise | <85 dBA vs ≥85 dBA: RR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.14, 2.65[27,68,110,116,120,123,125,132] RR per 10 dBA increase: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15, 2.36[36,60,111,122,125] | 35,746(12 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW # |
| Hypertension – cohort/case-control assessed with: exposure to occupational noise | <85 dBA vs ≥85 dBA: RR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.80[26,121,134] RR per 10 dBA increase: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.48[34,37,115] | 17,694(6 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW ** |
| Hypertension – cohort/case-control assessed with: exposure to railway noise | RR* 0.98(0.90 to 1.06) | 498,022(2 observational studies) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW $,¶ |
| Hypertension – cross-sectional assessed with: exposure to wind turbine noise | [126]: OR association between A-weighted sound pressure levels and high blood pressure:Study 1 (2000): 1.03, 95% CI: 0.90-1.17Study 2 (2005): 1.05, 95% CI: 0.97–1.13Study 3 (2007): 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96–1.06 | 1755(1 observational study) | ⊕○○○VERY LOW †† |
CI: confidence Interval; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; RR: risk ratio; OR: odds ratio. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. *Change per 10 dBA (95% CI). †Moderate concerns with confounding and measurement of exposure. Critical concerns with missing data and measurement of outcome. ‡Moderate concerns with confounding and measurement of exposure. Serious concerns with missing data and measurement of outcome. $Concerns with imprecision because the 95% CI cannot exclude the potential for harm. ||Moderate concerns with measurement of exposure and missing data. Serious concern with measurement of outcome. ¶Moderate concerns with confounding, measurement of exposure, and selection of participants. Serious concerns with missing data and measurement of outcome. #Serious concerns with confounding, missing data, and measurement of outcome. Critical concern with exposure assessment. **Critical concern with measurement of exposure and outcome. Moderate concern with missing data. ††Serious concerns with confounding and measurement of outcome. Moderate concern with exposure assessment.