In 2020, we published a systematic review in this journal in which we found a positive dose–response relationship between occupational noise exposure and arterial hypertension [1]. In our original meta-analysis in Figure 6, we included the risk estimates from the cohort study published by Chang et al. [2]. The results of the 2013 publication excluded 10 workers who self-reported a physician hypertension diagnosis or antihypertensive medication use prior to the baseline examination in 1998. However, 311 of the 790 subjects recruited in 1998 reported a previous medical diagnosis of hypertension or had a measured mean resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 90 mm Hg [3] and were not excluded from the cohort. Upon our request, Chang et al. reanalyzed the data without these workers (personal communication: 1 August 2024, Table 1). The results of the reanalysis are shown in Figure 1. Also, despite the independent extraction of data, the prevalence of hypertension in one of the comparison groups examined by Shaykhlislamova et al. [2] was extracted as 10% (n = 24 of 242) instead of 12% (29 of 242). We corrected the prevalence and the corresponding prevalence ratios (PR) for the occupations shown in Table 2. The corrected values are now included in the meta-analysis with subgroup analyses for high and low risk of bias shown in Figure 1. We found a statistically significantly increased risk of hypertension of 1.68 (95% CI 1.43–1.99) in high-risk studies and a statistically significantly increased risk of hypertension of 1.75 (95% CI 1.06–2.89) in low-risk studies (Figure 1 of this erratum). In Figure 6 of our publication, the comparable results were ES = 1.72 (95% CI 1.45–2.03) in high-risk studies and ES = 1.85 (95% 1.17–2.90) in low-risk studies. Because of the changes regarding the study by Chang et al., 2013, we also revised Figures 2, 3, 7 and 8 in the publication of the systematic review with only minor deviations from the original publication. In summary, the reanalysis was necessary due to new findings, which show slight risk reductions. However, the core results of the systematic review with the evidence of a dose–response relationship between occupational noise exposure and the risk of arterial hypertension remain unchanged. Forest plot of study results stratified by risk of bias with corrected values. Studies marked with * indicate that we calculated the effect size (ES) from the reported prevalence. Studies marked with ** indicate that the odds ratio was corrected to represent the prevalence ratio. † indicates that a physician diagnosis of hypertension was included in the hypertension definition, and ‡ indicates that anti-hypertensive use was included in the hypertension definition. The gray shaded areas around each effect estimate is a visual depiction of the study weight. In the original publication, Figures 2, 3 and 6–8 needed to be corrected to account for a reanalysis of results from the study by Chang et al., 2013. The corrected Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 appear below. The corresponding citations were also added. In the original publication, Table 2 needed to be corrected to correct the author name of the citation.