DJ Gear Lab

Evidence map

Sound levels: what the evidence base looks like

4 publications, 1 of them trials and 0 syntheses. This page describes the shape of that literature rather than summarising its conclusions.

Updated 3 min read 4 citations

What the evidence on sound levels is made of Of 4 publications on this topic, the breakdown by study type: 1 randomised trial, 3 other. 13randomised trial (1)other (3)
4 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

This is a thin evidence base. It is included because the question gets asked, not because the literature has settled it — and a page that pretended otherwise would be worse than one that says so.

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 sound levels literature was published Publication years for the 4 papers on this topic, grouped into bands from before 2015 through to 2023 onwards. 2015-20192 papersBefore 20152 papers
Mostly settled or quiet. The most recent paper here is from 2019, 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. Effectiveness of Earplugs in Preventing Recreational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial — Ramakers GG, Kraaijenga VJ, Cattani G et al., 2016, randomised controlled trial
  2. Valencia's Cathedral Church Bell Acoustics Impact on the Hearing Abilities of Bell Ringers — García L, Parra L, Gomis BP et al., 2019, journal article
  3. Electrocochleography is more sensitive than distortion-product otoacoustic emission test for detecting noise-induced temporary threshold shift — Kim JS, Nam EC, Park SI, 2005, journal article
  4. Sound exposures and hearing thresholds of symphony orchestra musicians — Royster JD, Royster LH, Killion MC, 1991, journal article
How much research is there on sound levels?
4 publications are indexed here, of which 1 are trials and 0 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 2019. 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. Effectiveness of Earplugs in Preventing Recreational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Randomized Clinical Trial Ramakers GG, Kraaijenga VJ, Cattani G, et al. · JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2016 · Randomised controlled trial DOIPubMed 27054284
  2. Valencia's Cathedral Church Bell Acoustics Impact on the Hearing Abilities of Bell Ringers García L, Parra L, Gomis BP, et al. · International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019 · Journal article DOIPubMed 31060256Full text
  3. Electrocochleography is more sensitive than distortion-product otoacoustic emission test for detecting noise-induced temporary threshold shift Kim JS, Nam EC, Park SI · Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2005 · Journal article DOIPubMed 16213939
  4. Sound exposures and hearing thresholds of symphony orchestra musicians Royster JD, Royster LH, Killion MC · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 1991 · Journal article DOIPubMed 1918623