No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThere is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus.MethodsRecords were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded.ResultsTwo hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used.ConclusionsOur findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments.PROSPERO registrationThe systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525. Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1399-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tinnitus is the conscious perception of a sound without a corresponding external acoustic stimulus, usually described as a phantom perception. One of the major challenges for tinnitus research is to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms triggering and maintaining the symptoms, especially for subjective chronic tinnitus. Our objective was to synthesize the published literature in order to provide a comprehensive update on theoretical and experimental advances and to identify further research and clinical directions. We performed literature searches in three electronic databases, complemented by scanning reference lists from relevant reviews in our included records, citation searching of the included articles using Web of Science, and manual searching of the last 6 months of principal otology journals. One-hundred and thirty-two records were included in the review and the information related to peripheral and central mechanisms of tinnitus pathophysiology was collected in order to update on theories and models. A narrative synthesis examined the main themes arising from this information. Tinnitus pathophysiology is complex and multifactorial, involving the auditory and non-auditory systems. Recent theories assume the necessary involvement of extra-auditory brain regions for tinnitus to reach consciousness. Tinnitus engages multiple active dynamic and overlapping networks. We conclude that advancing knowledge concerning the origin and maintenance of specific tinnitus subtypes origin and maintenance mechanisms is of paramount importance for identifying adequate treatment.

Background: Though clinical guidelines for assessment and treatment of chronic subjective tinnitus do exist, a comprehensive review of those guidelines has not been performed. The objective of this review was to identify current clinical guidelines, and compare their recommendations for the assessment and treatment of subjective tinnitus in adults.Method: We systematically searched a range of sources for clinical guidelines (as defined by the Institute of Medicine, United States) for the assessment and/or treatment of subjective tinnitus in adults. No restrictions on language or year of publication were applied to guidelines.Results: Clinical guidelines from Denmark, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United States were included in the review. There was a high level of consistency across the guidelines with regard to recommendations for audiometric assessment, physical examination, use of a validated questionnaire(s) to assess tinnitus related distress, and referral to a psychologist when required. Cognitive behavioral treatment for tinnitus related distress, use of hearing aids in instances of hearing loss and recommendations against the use of medicines were consistent across the included guidelines. Differences between the guidelines centered on the use of imaging in assessment procedures and sound therapy as a form of treatment for tinnitus distress respectively.Conclusion: Given the level of commonality across tinnitus guidelines from different countries the development of a European guideline for the assessment and treatment of subjective tinnitus in adults seems feasible. This guideline would have the potential to benefit the large number of clinicians in countries where clinical guidelines do not yet exist, and would support standardization of treatment for patients across Europe.