Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Source study found

Story checked

Noisy Workplace Linked to Hypertension, Hyperlipidemia (opens in a new tab)

medscape.com · 2018-04-05

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Mixed

Mixed.

The claims we could check match the study, but some claims were not covered by the evidence reviewed.

  • 3 supported
  • 2 not covered

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Mixed

Every claim we could check holds up. Three of five claims match the study. This overall rating is based only on the claims we could check. Two claims the study doesn't address.

  • 3 supported
  • 2 not covered
Open claim evidence
3
Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

Each claim gets a verdict. Expand it to see the evidence directly below.

5 claims in this story

Showing all 5 claimsChoose a verdict to focus the list.

Claim 1 of 5Not coveredAmong 22,906 current workers in the analysis, 25% reported a history of work-related noise exposure, 12% had hearing difficulty, 24% had hypertension, and 28% had elevated cholesterol.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated22,906 current workers; 25% noise exposure; 12% hearing difficulty; 24% hypertension; 28% elevated cholesterol

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the reported percentages for occupational noise exposure history, hearing difficulty, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol. However, the exact analytic sample size of 22,906 current workers is not provided in the abstract-level evidence, so the full numerical claim is not verifiable at this depth.

1

Study evidence

One-quarter of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.25% (history); 14% (exposed in last year)

“National Health Interview Survey data from 2014 were examined.”
2

Study evidence

25% of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.

“...to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure.”
Claim 2 of 5Not coveredA history of workplace noise exposure was associated with significantly elevated prevalence ratios for hypertension and elevated cholesterol, but not with coronary heart disease or stroke.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedPR 1.16 for hypertension and PR 1.10 for elevated cholesterol

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the broad finding that hypertension and elevated cholesterol were more prevalent among noise-exposed workers and that adjusted prevalence ratios were estimated. But it does not provide the specific PR values, significance statements, confidence intervals, or the claimed null findings for coronary heart disease or stroke, so this detailed claim is not verifiable at abstract depth.

1

Study evidence

25% of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.

“...to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure.”
Claim 3 of 5SupportedHypertension and hyperlipidemia are more common among workers exposed to loud noise in the workplace, according to new research from NIOSH.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile supports the associational headline claim that hypertension and elevated cholesterol/hyperlipidemia were more prevalent among workers with occupational noise exposure. The headline does not assert causation, so it does not outrun the body’s cross-sectional caveat.

1

Study evidence

25% of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.

“...to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure.”
Claim 4 of 5SupportedThe researchers said they could not determine whether noise causes these conditions because the study was cross-sectional.View evidenceHide evidence

Why this verdict

The profile explicitly identifies the study as cross-sectional and lists limited ability to infer temporality or causality as a limitation. The quoted statement that the researchers could not determine whether noise causes the conditions is consistent with the abstract-level limitations.

1

Study evidence

One-quarter of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.25% (history); 14% (exposed in last year)

“National Health Interview Survey data from 2014 were examined.”
2

Study evidence

25% of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.

“...to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure.”
Claim 5 of 5SupportedThe article says the study estimated that 14% of hypertension cases and 9% of elevated cholesterol cases among US workers could be attributed to occupational noise exposure.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated14% of hypertension cases; 9% of elevated cholesterol cases; 58% of hearing difficulty cases

Why this verdict

The abstract-level profile reports attributable proportions of 58% for hearing difficulty, 14% for hypertension, and 9% for elevated cholesterol in the same context as occupational noise exposure. This matches the story’s stated attributable-fraction figures, although the rationale should be read alongside the study’s cross-sectional limitation, which restricts causal interpretation of 'attributed' cases.

1

Study evidence

25% of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.

“...to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure.”
Then look for missing context

Context layer

What the story left out

Important study details the story did not include.

  • Exposure and outcomes were self-reported, creating potential for misclassification or reporting bias.

    The story caveats supplied here mention the cross-sectional design but do not mention that occupational noise exposure and health outcomes were self-reported, an interpretation-relevant limitation in the paper profile.

    From NHIS 2014 cross-sectional survey analysis; Cross-sectional analysis of 2014 NHIS worker sample

  • Potential residual confounding is a limitation of the observational association analysis.

    The supplied story caveats acknowledge noncausality from the cross-sectional design but do not mention residual confounding, which is listed as a limitation in the paper profile.

    From NHIS 2014 cross-sectional survey analysis; Cross-sectional analysis of 2014 NHIS worker sample

5 things the story did carry across
  • The study used 2014 National Health Interview Survey data from currently working US adults in a cross-sectional observational analysis.
  • The paper estimated weighted prevalence of occupational noise exposure, hearing difficulty, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and coronary heart disease/stroke by exposure level, industry, and occupation.
  • The paper’s central inferential finding was that hearing difficulty, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol were more prevalent among workers with occupational noise exposure, based on adjusted prevalence-ratio analyses.
  • The paper reported attributable proportions: 58% of hearing-difficulty cases, 14% of hypertension cases, and 9% of elevated-cholesterol cases attributed to occupational noise exposure.
  • Cross-sectional design limits causal inference and assessment of temporality between occupational noise exposure and outcomes.
Then read the study layer

Study layer

Study at a glance

Scan the study first. Expand only the parts you want to inspect.

Pieces of work

2

Evidence read

study summary

Lead result

secondary data

1Lead resultsecondary dataExamine associations between occupational noise exposure and hearing difficulty and cardiovascular conditions (hypertension, elevated cholesterol, coronary heart disease and/or stroke), including adjusted prevalence ratios and attributable fractions.Cross-sectional analysis of 2014 NHIS worker sampleExpand

In plain English

Using the 2014 National Health Interview Survey worker sample, the study estimated prevalence of occupational noise exposure, hearing difficulty, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol and modeled associations between occupational noise exposure and these outcomes using adjusted prevalence ratios; the authors report higher prevalence of hearing difficulty, hypertension, and elevated cholesterol among noise-exposed workers and present attributable proportions for those outcomes.

Key findings

  • 25% of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.
  • Prevalence in the worker sample: 12% reported hearing difficulty, 24% reported hypertension, and 28% reported elevated cholesterol.
“...to examine any associations of these outcomes with occupational noise exposure.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Cross-sectional analysis of survey data limits causal inference and assessment of temporality between occupational noise exposure and outcomes.
  • Exposure and outcomes are self-reported in the NHIS; potential for misclassification and reporting bias.
  • Abstract does not provide adjusted prevalence ratio estimates, confidence intervals, or specify covariates included in models.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

2secondary dataEstimate the prevalence of occupational noise exposure, hearing difficulty, and cardiovascular conditions within US industries and occupations using 2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data.NHIS 2014 cross-sectional survey analysisExpand

In plain English

Secondary analysis of 2014 National Health Interview Survey data estimating weighted, industry- and occupation-stratified prevalence of self-reported occupational noise exposure, hearing difficulty, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and coronary heart disease/stroke; reports prevalence estimates, adjusted prevalence ratios by noise exposure level, and attributable fractions, and concludes these outcomes (hearing difficulty, hypertension, elevated cholesterol) are more prevalent among noise-exposed workers.

Key findings

  • One-quarter of current workers reported a history of occupational noise exposure; 14% reported exposure in the last year.25% (history); 14% (exposed in last year)
  • 12% of workers reported hearing difficulty; an estimated 58% of these cases were attributable to occupational noise exposure.12% prevalence; 58% attributable fraction
“National Health Interview Survey data from 2014 were examined.”
What this piece can’t prove
  • Cross-sectional survey design (2014 NHIS) limits ability to infer temporality or causality.
  • Exposure and outcomes are self-reported in NHIS (no objective noise measurements or clinical verification reported in abstract).
  • Potential for residual confounding and misclassification of exposure/outcome.

1 further detail could not be confirmed from the summary.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

NewsLink found the paper. Tessa takes you deeper.

NewsLink checks the story. Tessa is where you inspect the paper, authors, evidence, and research context.

Papers considered

The selected paper, plus nearby candidates.

PubMed, Crossref, Europe PMC · 15 candidate papers

CandidateOpen access

Occupational Noise Exposure and Cardiovascular Function and Lipid Profile in the Garment Industry in Egypt: A Comparative Cross-sectional Study.

Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health = Yebang Uihakhoe Chi · 2026 · PubMed, Europe PMC

Tessa (opens in a new tab)Source (opens in a new tab)
Candidate

Occupational Health and Safety of Agricultural Workers in the United States

Food Security in the United States · 2021 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 9 more candidates considered.