WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep.
WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Effects on Sleep.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/ijerph15030519
复制
发表时间：
2018-03-14
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
McGuire S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Basner M;McGuire S
为了评估环境噪声暴露对睡眠影响的现有证据的质量，进行了系统的回顾。在PSYCINFO、PubMed、Science Direct、Scopus、Web of Science和TNO Repository等数据库中搜索了2000年或之后发表的关于环境噪声对睡眠影响的非实验室研究，这些研究具有测量或预测的噪声水平。使用GRADE标准评估证据的质量。主要在2000年至2015年间进行的74项研究被纳入该综述。研究人员对公路、铁路和飞机噪音暴露与睡眠障碍自我报告之间的关系进行了荟萃分析。当问题涉及噪音时，Lnight增加10 dB时，高度睡眠干扰百分比的比值比对于飞机噪音（1.94;95% CI 1.61-2.3）、道路噪音（2.13;95% CI 1.82-2.48）和铁路噪音（3.06;95% CI 2.38-3.93）具有显著性，但对于问题不涉及噪音时，飞机噪音（1.17;95% CI 0.54-2.53）、道路噪音（1.09;95% CI 0.94-1.27）和铁路噪音（1.27;95% CI 0.89-1.81）不具有显著性。对交通噪音对睡眠的急性影响的多导睡眠图研究也进行了汇总分析，室内Lmax增加10 dBA唤醒概率的未调整比值比对于飞机噪音（1.35;95% CI 1.22-1.50）、道路噪音（1.36;95% CI 1.19-1.55）和铁路噪音（1.35;95% CI 1.21-1.52）具有显著性。由于研究数量有限且使用了不同的结果测量方法，因此仅对运动、心脏和血压结果以及儿童睡眠进行了叙述性回顾。研究还评估了风力涡轮机和医院噪音对睡眠的影响。根据现有的证据，交通噪音影响客观测量的睡眠生理和主观评估的成人睡眠障碍。对于其他结果测量和噪声源，检查的证据相互矛盾或只是出现。根据GRADE标准，交通噪音引起的皮质觉醒和自我报告的睡眠障碍（涉及噪音的问题）的证据质量为中等，交通噪音引起的睡眠障碍的运动性测量的证据质量为低，所有其他噪声源和调查的睡眠结果的证据质量非常低。
To evaluate the quality of available evidence on the effects of environmental noise exposure on sleep a systematic review was conducted. The databases PSYCINFO, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science and the TNO Repository were searched for non-laboratory studies on the effects of environmental noise on sleep with measured or predicted noise levels and published in or after the year 2000. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Seventy four studies predominately conducted between 2000 and 2015 were included in the review. A meta-analysis of surveys linking road, rail, and aircraft noise exposure to self-reports of sleep disturbance was conducted. The odds ratio for the percent highly sleep disturbed for a 10 dB increase in Lnight was significant for aircraft (1.94; 95% CI 1.61–2.3), road (2.13; 95% CI 1.82–2.48), and rail (3.06; 95% CI 2.38–3.93) noise when the question referred to noise, but non-significant for aircraft (1.17; 95% CI 0.54–2.53), road (1.09; 95% CI 0.94–1.27), and rail (1.27; 95% CI 0.89–1.81) noise when the question did not refer to noise. A pooled analysis of polysomnographic studies on the acute effects of transportation noise on sleep was also conducted and the unadjusted odds ratio for the probability of awakening for a 10 dBA increase in the indoor Lmax was significant for aircraft (1.35; 95% CI 1.22–1.50), road (1.36; 95% CI 1.19–1.55), and rail (1.35; 95% CI 1.21–1.52) noise. Due to a limited number of studies and the use of different outcome measures, a narrative review only was conducted for motility, cardiac and blood pressure outcomes, and for children’s sleep. The effect of wind turbine and hospital noise on sleep was also assessed. Based on the available evidence, transportation noise affects objectively measured sleep physiology and subjectively assessed sleep disturbance in adults. For other outcome measures and noise sources the examined evidence was conflicting or only emerging. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of the evidence was moderate for cortical awakenings and self-reported sleep disturbance (for questions that referred to noise) induced by traffic noise, low for motility measures of traffic noise induced sleep disturbance, and very low for all other noise sources and investigated sleep outcomes.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
BONNET, MH
通讯作者：
BONNET, MH
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Brink, Mark;Mueller, Christopher H.;Schierz, Christoph
通讯作者：
Schierz, Christoph
影响因子：
5.6
作者：
Basner, Mathias;Griefahn, Barbara;Samel, Alexander
通讯作者：
Samel, Alexander
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
BARKER, SM;TARNOPOLSKY, A
通讯作者：
TARNOPOLSKY, A
影响因子：
5.6
作者：
Aaron, JN;Carlisle, CC;Millman, RP
通讯作者：
Millman, RP