WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review on Environmental Noise and Cardiovascular and Metabolic Effects: A Summary

Abstract

To update the current state of evidence and assess its quality, we conducted a systematic review on the effects of environmental noise exposure on the cardio-metabolic systems as input for the new WHO environmental noise guidelines for the European Region. We identified 600 references relating to studies on effects of noise from road, rail and air traffic, and wind turbines on the cardio-metabolic system, published between January 2000 and August 2015. Only 61 studies, investigating different end points, included information enabling estimation of exposure response relationships. These studies were used for meta-analyses, and assessments of the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A majority of the studies concerned traffic noise and hypertension, but most were cross-sectional and suffering from a high risk of bias. The most comprehensive evidence was available for road traffic noise and Ischeamic Heart Diseases (IHD). Combining the results of 7 longitudinal studies revealed a Relative Risk (RR) of 1.08 (95% CI: 1.01–1.15) per 10 dB (LDEN) for the association between road traffic noise and the incidence of IHD. We rated the quality of this evidence as high. Only a few studies reported on the association between transportation noise and stroke, diabetes, and/or obesity. The quality of evidence for these associations was rated from moderate to very low, depending on transportation noise source and outcome. For a comprehensive assessment of the impact of noise exposure on the cardiovascular and metabolic system, we need more and better quality evidence, primarily based on longitudinal studies.

Long-term transportation noise exposure and incidence of ischaemic heart disease and stroke: a cohort study

“…The evidence on transportation noise and stroke is limited 2. Our study did not show an association between road traffic exposure and stroke in contrast to a Danish cohort study reporting a RR of 1.14 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) per 10 dB L den and a pooled estimate from the WHO-review with RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.15) per 10 dB L den for aircraft noise.…”

“…A recent meta-analysis of three cohorts and four case-control studies calculated a Relative Risk (RR) of 1.08 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.15) per 10 dB L den for IHD following exposure to noise from road traffic 2. In the present study, the overall result was comparable to a recent Swedish cohort study on myocardial infarction and road traffic noise showing a RR of 0.99 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.14) per 10 dB L den 15.…”

“…There is growing evidence of adverse cardiovascular effects of transportation noise from different sources, and this evidence was recently evaluated in a systematic review performed within the framework of developing new WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region 2. Overall, meta-analyses indicated an association between road traffic noise and incidence of IHD based on seven cohort or case-control studies as well as for aircraft noise based on two ecological studies.…”

Correlation Between the Length of Stay Around Railways and Quality of Life

“…Previous studies report that noise exposure increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Noise exposure will trigger sympathetic system activity [8,9]. In addition to physical effect, noise also causes psychological problems such as sleep disturbance, fatigue and decreased cognitive function.…”

The Influence of Pavement Degradation on Population Exposure to Road Traffic Noise

“…The main noise sources are engine noise and rolling noise from tyre/road surface interaction [1], where typically noise levels increase with higher traffic volumes and speeds. The exposure to noise is responsible for a number of health issues, such as increased risk of cardiovascular health disorder, sleep disorders, psychological impact, cognitive dysfunction for children, and more generally, annoyance and stress [2][3][4].…”