ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Occupational Hearing Loss in the Intensive Care Unit: A Comparative Study Between ICU and Non-ICU Nursing Staff.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOccupational exposure to sustained high-noise levels in intensive care units (ICUs) could pose significant auditory health risks for healthcare professionals.
aimThis investigation evaluates the prevalence and characteristics of hearing impairment among nursing staff working in an intensive care unit (ICU) versus non-ICU environments within Chinese healthcare facilities. STUDY
designA cross-sectional study was conducted at a hospital in Chongqing, China. Participants underwent comprehensive audiological assessments including pure-tone audiometry (PTA) and Chinese digits-in-noise (DIN) (testing for speech reception thresholds (SRT)). Statistical analyses employed univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to identify independent predictors of hearing impairment.
resultsA total of 93 registered nurses (45 ICU and 48 non-ICU) were included in the final analysis. ICU nurses demonstrated significantly worse hearing thresholds compared to non-ICU counterparts, particularly at high frequencies (4-8 kHz). Approximately 20% of ICU nurses exhibited hearing loss (> 25 dB HL) at high frequencies, compared to 10% in non-ICU settings. Working in ICU environments (adjusted OR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.25-6.35), working 50-60 h per week (adjusted OR = 4.15, 95% CI: 1.18-14.60), and working more than 60 h per week (adjusted OR = 5.85, 95% CI: 1.55-22.10) emerged as significant independent predictors of hearing impairment. Speech reception thresholds were significantly poorer among ICU nurses (p < 0.05), with PTA thresholds showing a strong correlation with SRT performance (r = 0.824, p < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis identified 2 kHz as the most critical frequency contributing to speech understanding in noise for both groups.
conclusionsThis study provides compelling evidence of elevated hearing impairment risk among ICU nurses compared to non-ICU nursing staff in China. These findings highlight the urgent need for targeted occupational health interventions and hearing conservation programmes for nursing staff working in high-noise environments. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study emphasises the necessity of targeted occupational health measures for ICU nurses, particularly those with prolonged working hours. Clinical protocols should prioritise monitoring high-frequency hearing thresholds and incorporating speech-in-noise assessments to detect functional deficits. Furthermore, implementing workload management strategies is essential to mitigate the dose-response risk of noise exposure and preserve nurses' long-term auditory health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.