Senior onderzoeker Rampen en Milieudreigingen
Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Evidence relating to environmental noise exposure and annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardio-vascular and metabolic health outcomes in the context of IGCB (N): a scoping review of new evidence.
Kamp, I. van, Simon, S., Notley, H., Baliatsas, C., Kempen, E. van. Evidence relating to environmental noise exposure and annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardio-vascular and metabolic health outcomes in the context of IGCB (N): a scoping review of new evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health: 2020, 17(9), 21 p.
Lees online
Background
WHO published the Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region in 2018, based on seven systematic reviews including studies published between 2000 and 2014. Since then, new studies were published. At the request of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), a review on annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular and metabolic effects in relation to environmental noise was prepared. The aim was to advise the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits Noise Subject Group (IGCB(N)) whether this new evidence warrants an update of their recommendations.
Method
Four databases for observational studies were screened and data were extracted on design, type and measurements of exposures and outcomes and confounders and their associations. The quality of the studies was indirectly assessed for cardiovascular and metabolic effects by only including studies with a case control or cohort design. For studies on annoyance and sleep disturbance, the risk of bias was expressed in exposure misclassification, selective participation and confounding.
Results
The update yielded 87 papers, pertaining to 108 new studies of which 40 new studies were on annoyance, 42 on sleep disturbance and 26 concerning cardiovascular and metabolic effects.
Conclusion
The number, size and quality of the new studies suggest new meta-analyses could be undertaken over the sources and effects included in the WHO reviews.
WHO published the Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region in 2018, based on seven systematic reviews including studies published between 2000 and 2014. Since then, new studies were published. At the request of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), a review on annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular and metabolic effects in relation to environmental noise was prepared. The aim was to advise the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits Noise Subject Group (IGCB(N)) whether this new evidence warrants an update of their recommendations.
Method
Four databases for observational studies were screened and data were extracted on design, type and measurements of exposures and outcomes and confounders and their associations. The quality of the studies was indirectly assessed for cardiovascular and metabolic effects by only including studies with a case control or cohort design. For studies on annoyance and sleep disturbance, the risk of bias was expressed in exposure misclassification, selective participation and confounding.
Results
The update yielded 87 papers, pertaining to 108 new studies of which 40 new studies were on annoyance, 42 on sleep disturbance and 26 concerning cardiovascular and metabolic effects.
Conclusion
The number, size and quality of the new studies suggest new meta-analyses could be undertaken over the sources and effects included in the WHO reviews.
Background
WHO published the Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region in 2018, based on seven systematic reviews including studies published between 2000 and 2014. Since then, new studies were published. At the request of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), a review on annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular and metabolic effects in relation to environmental noise was prepared. The aim was to advise the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits Noise Subject Group (IGCB(N)) whether this new evidence warrants an update of their recommendations.
Method
Four databases for observational studies were screened and data were extracted on design, type and measurements of exposures and outcomes and confounders and their associations. The quality of the studies was indirectly assessed for cardiovascular and metabolic effects by only including studies with a case control or cohort design. For studies on annoyance and sleep disturbance, the risk of bias was expressed in exposure misclassification, selective participation and confounding.
Results
The update yielded 87 papers, pertaining to 108 new studies of which 40 new studies were on annoyance, 42 on sleep disturbance and 26 concerning cardiovascular and metabolic effects.
Conclusion
The number, size and quality of the new studies suggest new meta-analyses could be undertaken over the sources and effects included in the WHO reviews.
WHO published the Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region in 2018, based on seven systematic reviews including studies published between 2000 and 2014. Since then, new studies were published. At the request of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), a review on annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular and metabolic effects in relation to environmental noise was prepared. The aim was to advise the Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits Noise Subject Group (IGCB(N)) whether this new evidence warrants an update of their recommendations.
Method
Four databases for observational studies were screened and data were extracted on design, type and measurements of exposures and outcomes and confounders and their associations. The quality of the studies was indirectly assessed for cardiovascular and metabolic effects by only including studies with a case control or cohort design. For studies on annoyance and sleep disturbance, the risk of bias was expressed in exposure misclassification, selective participation and confounding.
Results
The update yielded 87 papers, pertaining to 108 new studies of which 40 new studies were on annoyance, 42 on sleep disturbance and 26 concerning cardiovascular and metabolic effects.
Conclusion
The number, size and quality of the new studies suggest new meta-analyses could be undertaken over the sources and effects included in the WHO reviews.