论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨不同版本诊断标准对疑似职业性噪声聋（occupational noise-induced deafness，ONID）诊断结果的影响，为ONID诊断标准的修订提供理论依据。方法:于2019年9月回顾性调查2016年1月至2018年1月在清远市职业病防治院进行职业健康检查的在岗期间噪声作业工人的体检结果，以GBZ 49-2014《职业性噪声聋的诊断》标准判断为疑似ONID的471例劳动者为研究对象，加权不同组合高频听阈，计算较好耳加权值，分别与2007版、2014版诊断标准进行比较并判断听力损失程度。采用SPSS 22.0进行统计分析，计数资料用χn 2检验，计量偏态资料用非参数检验方法进行统计推断并比较其差异性。n 结果:471名研究对象平均年龄（40.32±7.01）岁；接触噪声作业工龄3~29年，平均（7.11±3.44）年。以2007版诊断标准进行诊断，加权不同高频听阈值与单纯语频均值疑似ONID诊断率差值两两比较，加权不同高频听阈值后，与语频均值诊断率差值比较，3.0 kHz高频增加了16.35%、4.0 kHz高频增加了30.15%、6.0 kHz高频增加了20.17%、3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz高频增加了22.29%、3.0 kHz+6.0 kHz高频加增加了17.20%、4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz高频增加了25.27%、3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz高频增加了22.29%，差异均有统计学意义（n P<0.05）。以2014版诊断标准进行诊断，语频均值及加权不同高频听阈值疑似ONID诊断率，与4.0 kHz高频诊断率比较，语频均值降低了30.15%、3.0 kHz高频降低了13.80%、6.0 kHz高频降低了9.98%、3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz高频降低了7.86%、3.0 kHz+6.0 kHz高频降低了12.95%、4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz高频降低了4.88%、3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz高频降低了7.86%，差异均有统计学意义（n P<0.05）。n 结论:加权不同高频听阈值增加了疑似ONID的诊断率，其中加权4.0 kHz高频对结果的影响最大，加权3.0 kHz高频影响最小。“,”Objective:To explore the effect of different diagnostic criteria on occupational noise-induced deafness (Onid) , and to provide theoretical basis for the revision of ONID diagnostic criteria.Methods:From January 2016 to January 2018, the physical examination results of noise-exposed workers during occupational health examination in Qingyuan Occupational Disease Prevention and Treatment Hospital were retrospectively investigated in September 2019, with Gbz 49-2014《diagnosis of occupational noise deafness》as the study object, 471 workers suspected of Onid were weighted with different combinations of high frequency hearing threshold, and the better ear weight was calculated, compared with the diagnostic criteria of 2007 and 2014, the degree of hearing loss was evaluated. SPSS 22.0 was used for statistical analysis, χ n 2 test was used for counting data, and non-parametric test was used for measuring bias data.n Results:The average age of 471 subjects was (40.32±7.01) years, and the average age of exposure to noise was (7.11±3.44) years. On the basis of the 2007 edition diagnostic standard, the suspected ONID diagnostic rate of different high frequency auditory threshold was increased by 16.35% and 30.15% at 3.0 kHz, 6.0 kHz increased by 20.17%, 3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz increased by 22.29%, 3.0 kHz+6.0 kHz increased by 17.20%, 4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz increased by 25.27%, the differences were statistically significant (n P<0.05) , the frequency of 3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz increased by 22.29%. Using the 2014 edition diagnostic standard, the diagnostic rate of Onid was reduced by 30.15% and 13.80%, 6 kHz is 9.98% lower, 3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz is 7.86% lower, 3.0 kHz+6.0 kHz is 12.95% lower, 4.0 kHz+6.0 is 4.88% lower, the high frequency of 3.0 kHz+4.0 kHz+6.0 kHz decreased by 7.86%, the differences were statistically significant (n P<0.05) .n Conclusion:The diagnosis rate of suspected Onid is increased by weighting different high frequency hearing threshold, in which the weighted 4kHz high frequency has the greatest influence on the result, and the weighted 3 kHz high frequency has the least.