We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jlo.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
There has been no previous research to demonstrate the risk of noise-induced hearing loss in industry in Nepal. Limited research on occupational noise-induced hearing loss has been conducted within small-scale industry worldwide, despite it being a substantial and growing cause of deafness in the developing world.
Method:
The study involved a cross-sectional audiometric assessment, with questionnaire-based examinations of noise and occupational history, and workplace noise level assessment.
Results:
A total of 115 metal workers and 123 hotel workers (control subjects) were recruited. Noise-induced hearing loss prevalence was 30.4 per cent in metal workers and 4.1 per cent in hotel workers, with a significant odds ratio of 10.3. Except for age and time in occupation, none of the demographic factors were significant in predicting outcomes in regression analyses. When adjusted for this finding, and previous noise-exposed occupations, the odds ratio was 13.8. Workplace noise was significantly different between the groups, ranging from 65.3 to 84.7 dBA in metal worker sites, and from 51.4 to 68.6 dBA in the control sites.
Conclusion:
Metal workers appear to have a greater risk of noise-induced hearing loss than controls. Additional research on occupational noise-induced hearing loss in Nepal and small-scale industry globally is needed.
One hundred years ago, millions of British and Allied troops were fighting in the trenches of the Great War. With a tenth of soldiers losing their lives, hearing loss seemed a low priority; however, vast numbers of troops sustained significant hearing loss.
Method
A review was conducted of literature published between 1914 and 1925.
Results
Soldiers were exposed to up to 185 dB of sustained noise from new, high-energy weapons, which caused ‘labyrinthine concussion’. Traumatic injuries, non-organic hearing loss and malingering were also common. One source estimated that 2.4 per cent of the army was disabled by hearing loss. However, many British doctors viewed this ‘soldier's deafness’ as a temporary affliction, resulting in soldiers being labelled as malingerers or ‘hysterical’.
Conclusion
Today, one can recognise that a scant evidence base and misconceptions influenced the mismanagement of hearing loss by otolaryngologists in World War I. However, noise-induced hearing loss is still very much a feature of armed conflict.
To examine whether distortion product otoacoustic emissions can serve as a replacement for pure tone audiometry in longitudinal screening for occupational noise exposure related auditory deficit.
Methods:
A retrospective review was conducted of pure tone audiometry and distortion product otoacoustic emission data obtained sequentially during mandatory screening of brickyard workers (n = 16). Individual pure tone audiometry thresholds were compared with distortion product otoacoustic emission amplitudes, and a correlation of these measurements was conducted.
Results:
Pure tone audiometry threshold elevation was identified in 13 out of 16 workers. When distortion product otoacoustic emission amplitudes were compared with pure tone audiometry thresholds at matched frequencies, no evidence of a robust relationship was apparent. Seven out of 16 workers had substantial distortion product otoacoustic emissions with elevated pure tone audiometry thresholds.
Conclusion:
No clinically relevant predictive relationship between distortion product otoacoustic emission amplitude and pure tone audiometry threshold was apparent. These results do not support the replacement of pure tone audiometry with distortion product otoacoustic emissions in screening. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions at frequencies associated with elevated pure tone audiometry thresholds are evidence of intact outer hair cell function, suggesting that sites distinct from these contribute to auditory deficit following ototrauma.
