The TFI should be useful in both clinical and research settings because of its responsiveness to treatment-related change, validity for scaling the overall severity of tinnitus, and comprehensive coverage of multiple domains of tinnitus severity.
There is widespread recognition that consistency between research centres in the ways that patients with tinnitus are assessed and outcomes following interventions are measured would facilitate more effective co-operation and more meaningful evaluations and comparisons of outcomes. At the first Tinnitus Research Initiative meeting held in Regensburg in July 2006 an attempt was made through workshops to gain a consensus both for patient assessments and for outcome measurements. It is hoped that this will contribute towards better cooperation between
Answers to questionnaires filled out by 436 patients who visited our tinnitus clinic were analyzed. Patients were asked to report the presence or absence of depression and to rate the loudness and severity of their tinnitus. Responses to questions about tinnitus loudness and severity from 121 patients who reported current depression were compared with responses from 285 patients who reported no history of depression. There was no significant difference in reported loudness of tinnitus between patients with and without depression. However, patients with current depression scored significantly higher than patients without depression on all 12 questions relating to tinnitus severity. We conclude that depression and tinnitus severity are linked in some patients. Treatment of depression with medications and psychotherapy is likely to reduce tinnitus severity for many of these patients.
Over the past two decades, recognition has grown that measures for evaluating treatment outcomes must be designed specifically to have high responsiveness. With that in mind, four major types of tinnitus measures are reviewed, including psychoacoustic measures, self-report questionnaires concerning functional effects of tinnitus, various rating scales, and global outcome measures. Nine commonly used tinnitus questionnaires, developed in the period 1980-2000, are reviewed. Because of many similarities between tinnitus and pain, comparisons between pain and tinnitus measures are discussed, and recommendations that have been made for developing a core set of measures to evaluate treatment-related changes in pain are presented as providing a fruitful path for developing a core set of measures for tinnitus. Finally, the importance of having both immediately obtainable outcome measures (psychoacoustic, rating scales, or single global measures) and longer term measures (questionnaires covering the negative effects of tinnitus) is emphasized for further work in tinnitus outcomes assessment.
A controlled clinical study was conducted to evaluate prospectively the clinical efficacy of tinnitus masking (TM) and tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) in military veterans having clinically significant tinnitus. Qualifying patients were placed into the two groups in an alternating manner (to avoid selection bias), and treatment was administered at 0, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months. Outcomes of treatment were evaluated using three self-administered tinnitus questionnaires (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire, Tinnitus Severity Index) and the verbally administered TRT interview forms. Findings are presented from the three written questionnaires, and from two of the interview questions (percentage time aware of, and annoyed by, tinnitus). Outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis, using a multilevel modeling approach. Of the 123 patients enrolled, 118 were included in the analysis. Both groups showed significant declines (improvements) on these measures, with the TRT decline being significantly greater than for TM. The greater declines in TRT compared to TM occurred most strongly in patients who began treatment with a "very big" tinnitus problem. When patients began treatment with a "moderate" tinnitus problem, the benefits of TRT compared to TM were more modest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.