Question

A population-based study of 451 acoustic neuroma patients and 710 age-, sex-, and region-matched individuals without neuroma was conducted in Sweden between 2002 and 2007. Cases were identified from clinical records at two specialty hospitals in Stockholm. Patients were included if they had been diagnosed with either histologically- or imaging-confirmed acoustic neuroma. Occupational exposure was based on historical measurements of occupational noise (321 job titles summarized by a job exposure matrix) and self-reported occupational noise exposure. The researchers also evaluated self-reported noise exposure during leisure activity. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios. There was no statistically significant association between acoustic neuroma and persistent occupational noise exposure, either with or without hearing protection. Exposure to loud noise from leisure activity without hearing protection was more common among acoustic neuroma cases (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval: 1.06, 2.03). Statistically significant odds ratios were found for specific leisure activities including attending concerts/clubs/sporting events (odds ratio = 1.82, 95% confidence interval: 1.09, 3.04) and participating in workouts accompanied by loud music (odds ratio = 2.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 5.89). The findings do not support an association between occupational exposure to loud noise and acoustic neuroma. Although they report statistically significant associations between leisure-time exposures to loud noise without hearing protection and acoustic neuroma, especially among women, recall bias cannot be ruled out as an alternative explanation.

Question 2: What type of study design was this? (2 points)

Question 3: List two advantages and two disadvantages of this type of study design. (8 points)

Question 4: What was the exposure(s) of interest? How was it measured? (4 points)

Question 5: What was the outcome(s) of interest? How was it determined? Was this method of ascertaining outcome data of this type likely to be accurate? Why or why not? (4 points)

Answer 1

2.It is population based study design correlating with the occupational and non occupational exposure to noise.

3.Advantages are it suggests the risk factor for acoustics neuroma related to occupational disorders

disadvantages are the findings do not support an association between occupational exposure to loud noise and acoustic neuroma. There was no statistically significant association between acoustic neuroma and persistent occupational noise exposure, either with or without hearing protection. Exposure to loud n

4.Exposures of interest are occupational noises loud sound and non occupational and are measured.concerts/clubs/sporting events (odds ratio = 1.82, 95% confidence interval: 1.09, 3.04) and participating in workouts accompanied by loud music (odds ratio = 2.84, 95% confidence interval: 1.37, 5.89).

5. Here by such population based studies we come to know the stats of acoustic neuroma prevalence in loud noise pollution workers.Occupational exposure was based on historical measurements of occupational noise (321 job titles summarized by a job exposure matrix) and self-reported occupational noise exposure. The researchers also evaluated self-reported noise exposure during leisure activity. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios. This is not accurate because The findings do not support an association between occupational exposure to loud noise and acoustic neuroma.