DJ Gear Lab

Evidence map

Hearing loss: what the evidence base looks like

6 publications, 0 of them trials and 3 syntheses. This page describes the shape of that literature rather than summarising its conclusions.

Updated 3 min read 6 citations

What the evidence on hearing loss is made of Of 6 publications on this topic, the breakdown by study type: 3 meta-analysis, 2 review, 1 other. 321meta-analysis (3)review (2)other (1)
6 publications, by study type. Volume is not strength — the same count can be a settled question or a pile of commentary, and which one it is depends almost entirely on this breakdown. Harvested from PubMed and Crossref; publication type as recorded by the source.

What this literature is made of

The synthesis is ahead of the primary literature here — reviews and meta-analyses drawing on a modest number of underlying studies. Treat confident conclusions with the caution the sample size deserves.

The distinction that matters most is between synthesis and primary research. A meta-analysis pools trials and is the closest thing to a settled answer a field produces. A narrative review is one group's reading of the same material and can be selective without being dishonest. Counting them together, which most citation counts do, obscures exactly the thing you want to know.

When the hearing loss literature was published Publication years for the 6 papers on this topic, grouped into bands from before 2015 through to 2023 onwards. 2020-20222 papers2015-20192 papers2023 onwards1 papersBefore 20151 papers
Mostly settled or quiet. The most recent paper here is from 2023, which usually means either a closed question or one that has fallen out of fashion. Publication years as recorded by PubMed and Crossref.

How this page is built

Everything above is computed from the citations this site harvested from PubMed and Crossref, not written by hand. When the weekly harvest finds a new paper on this topic, these counts change and the characterisation changes with them. That is the point: a hand-written claim about how strong an evidence base is starts decaying the day it is written.

Publication type is taken as the source records it. That is imperfect — journals label inconsistently, and a paper indexed as a "review" may be a systematic one — so treat the bands as approximate. They are accurate enough to distinguish a trial literature from a commentary literature, which is the distinction that matters.

The strongest work on this topic

Ordered by study design first, then recency. The full set is listed in the references below.

  1. The Effects of Short-Term and Long-term Hearing Changes on Music Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis — You S, Kong TH, Han W, 2020, meta-analysis
  2. Hearing Loss, Tinnitus, Hyperacusis, and Diplacusis in Professional Musicians: A Systematic Review — Di Stadio A, Dipietro L, Ricci G et al., 2018, systematic review
  3. Music-induced Hearing Loss in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis — le Clercq CMP, van Ingen G, Ruytjens L et al., 2016, meta-analysis
  4. Music as a unique source of noise-induced hearing loss — Reynolds A, Bielefeld EC, 2023, review
  5. Music exposure and hearing disorders: an overview — Zhao F, Manchaiah VK, French D et al., 2010, review
  6. Prevalence of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Middle and High School Band Members: A Preliminary Study — Ramrattan H, Gurevich N, 2020, journal article
How much research is there on hearing loss?
6 publications are indexed here, of which 0 are trials and 3 are syntheses.
Does more research mean a stronger conclusion?
No. Composition matters more than volume — five randomised trials support a claim far better than fifty commentaries, and citation counts do not distinguish between them.
How current is this?
The most recent paper indexed here is from 2023. The set is refreshed weekly from PubMed and Crossref.
Why does this page not tell me the answer?
Because summarising a literature into a conclusion requires reading it, and doing that automatically is how confident nonsense gets published. This page tells you how much weight a conclusion could bear; the articles on this site do the interpreting.

References

Every citation below links to the original peer-reviewed record on PubMed or via DOI. Nothing here is a substitute for medical advice.

  1. The Effects of Short-Term and Long-term Hearing Changes on Music Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis You S, Kong TH, Han W · International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020 · Meta-analysis DOIPubMed 32245244Full text
  2. Hearing Loss, Tinnitus, Hyperacusis, and Diplacusis in Professional Musicians: A Systematic Review Di Stadio A, Dipietro L, Ricci G, et al. · International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018 · Systematic review DOIPubMed 30261653Full text
  3. Music-induced Hearing Loss in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis le Clercq CMP, van Ingen G, Ruytjens L, et al. · Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2016 · Meta-analysis DOIPubMed 27466893
  4. Music as a unique source of noise-induced hearing loss Reynolds A, Bielefeld EC · Hearing research · 2023 · Review DOIPubMed 36736160
  5. Music exposure and hearing disorders: an overview Zhao F, Manchaiah VK, French D, et al. · International journal of audiology · 2010 · Review DOIPubMed 20001447
  6. Prevalence of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Middle and High School Band Members: A Preliminary Study Ramrattan H, Gurevich N · Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2020 · Journal article DOIPubMed 31302650