2009
DOI: 10.1016/s1808-8694(15)30529-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Brainstem evoked response in bus drivers with noise-induced hearing loss

Abstract: in the NIHL group, besides sensorial injury, changes in BEAP latencies suggest an early functional injury of the first auditory pathway afferent neuron.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such exposure causes successive aggression to the internal structures of the ear, such as the organ of Corti, and leads to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) [5153]. In the present study, the prevalence of NIHL was 18.6% and 22.3% in the left and right ears, respectively, and the most accentuated loss was recorded at the frequency of 4 kHz.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…Such exposure causes successive aggression to the internal structures of the ear, such as the organ of Corti, and leads to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) [5153]. In the present study, the prevalence of NIHL was 18.6% and 22.3% in the left and right ears, respectively, and the most accentuated loss was recorded at the frequency of 4 kHz.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 48%
“…Berjis et al also reported that at 2000 Hz, left ear hearing threshold was significantly higher than that of the right ear among Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) drivers ( Berjis et al, 2011 ). Additionally, some studies have found prevalence of hearing loss among drivers from 18.1% to 55.4% ( Janghorbani et al, 2009 , Santos & Castro Júnior, 2009 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings led them to conclusion that along with cochlear damage neuronal pathways in brainstem were also involved. [15,17,18] Differences between previous studies and present one may be due differences in selection of cases. In the present study, we selected cases with duration of exposure to noise with more than 1 year, whereas previous studies selected cases with more than 5 years exposure to noise.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 60%