Literature DB >> 24395086

Changes over time of psychoacoustic outcome measurements are not a substitute for subjective outcome measurements in acute tinnitus.

Sarah Rabau1, Tony Cox, Andrea Kleine Punte, Brecht Waelkens, Annick Gilles, Kristien Wouters, Sebastien Janssens de Varebeke, Paul Van de Heyning.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess correlations between the changes over time of various tinnitus measurements. A longitudinal prospective study comparing two test moments was performed: before treatment and after 90 days. Tinnitus assessment consisted of psychoacoustic outcome measurements (minimal masking level and loudness matching at 1 kHz) and subjective outcome measurements (Tinnitus Impairment Questionnaire, Tinnitus Questionnaire and Numeric Rating Scale of loudness and annoyance). Additionally, the effect size was measured. 35 subjects were included in this study. The subjects had a permanent, non-pulsatile tinnitus acquired <3 months previously. Weak or no significant correlations were found between ∆psychoacoustic outcome measurements and ∆subjective outcome measurements. The effect size showed that subjective outcome measurements were the most responsive to measure change in tinnitus complaints. We can conclude that psychoacoustic outcome measurements of tinnitus cannot substitute subjective outcome measurements in patients with acute tinnitus. The authors recommend subjective outcome measurements as primary outcome measurements in a clinical setting. In research, however, it is meaningful to quantify tinnitus in both ways.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24395086     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-013-2876-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  31 in total

1.  Prevalence of leisure noise-induced tinnitus and the attitude toward noise in university students.

Authors:  Annick Gilles; Dirk De Ridder; Guido Van Hal; Kristien Wouters; Andrea Kleine Punte; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Tinnitus severity measured by a subjective scale, audiometry and clinical judgement.

Authors:  J B Halford; S D Anderson
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 1.469

3.  The psychometric properties of a tinnitus handicap questionnaire.

Authors:  F K Kuk; R S Tyler; D Russell; H Jordan
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 4.  Assessment of tinnitus: measurement of treatment outcomes.

Authors:  M B Meikle; B J Stewart; S E Griest; W H Martin; J A Henry; H B Abrams; R McArdle; C W Newman; S A Sandridge
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.453

5.  Tinnitus outcomes assessment.

Authors:  Mary B Meikle; Barbara J Stewart; Susan E Griest; James A Henry
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-07-03

6.  A factor analytical study of tinnitus complaint behaviour.

Authors:  S C Jakes; R S Hallam; C Chambers; R Hinchcliffe
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1985

7.  Comparative study of four noise spectra as potential tinnitus maskers.

Authors:  P A Smith; V M Parr; M E Lutman; R R Coles
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1991-02

8.  The tinnitus functional index: development of a new clinical measure for chronic, intrusive tinnitus.

Authors:  Mary B Meikle; James A Henry; Susan E Griest; Barbara J Stewart; Harvey B Abrams; Rachel McArdle; Paula J Myers; Craig W Newman; Sharon Sandridge; Dennis C Turk; Robert L Folmer; Eric J Frederick; John W House; Gary P Jacobson; Sam E Kinney; William H Martin; Stephen M Nagler; Gloria E Reich; Grant Searchfield; Robert Sweetow; Jack A Vernon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  The loudness of tinnitus.

Authors:  P E Goodwin; R M Johnson
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1980 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Correlation analysis of hearing thresholds, validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic measurements in tinnitus patients.

Authors:  Ricardo Rodrigues Figueiredo; Marcelo A Rates; Andréia Aparecida de Azevedo; Patrícia Mello de Oliveira; Patrícia B A de Navarro
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug
View more
  5 in total

1.  Prognostic Indicators for Positive Treatment Outcome After Multidisciplinary Orofacial Treatment in Patients With Somatosensory Tinnitus.

Authors:  Annemarie van der Wal; Paul Van de Heyning; Annick Gilles; Laure Jacquemin; Vedat Topsakal; Vincent Van Rompaey; Marc Braem; Corine Mirjam Visscher; Steven Truijen; Sarah Michiels; Willem De Hertogh
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 2.  Pathophysiology of Subjective Tinnitus: Triggers and Maintenance.

Authors:  Haúla Faruk Haider; Tijana Bojić; Sara F Ribeiro; João Paço; Deborah A Hall; Agnieszka J Szczepek
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 4.677

3.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of late auditory evoked potentials as a candidate biomarker in the assessment of tinnitus.

Authors:  Emilie Cardon; Iris Joossen; Hanne Vermeersch; Laure Jacquemin; Griet Mertens; Olivier M Vanderveken; Vedat Topsakal; Paul Van de Heyning; Vincent Van Rompaey; Annick Gilles
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Clinical randomized trial study of hearing aids effectiveness in association with Ginkgo biloba extract (EGb 761) on tinnitus improvement.

Authors:  Camila L Radunz; Cristina E Okuyama; Fátima C A Branco-Barreiro; Regina M S Pereira; Susana N Diniz
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-06-18

5.  Tinnitus evaluation: relationship between pitch matching and loudness, visual analog scale and tinnitus handicap inventory.

Authors:  Islan da Penha Nascimento; Anna Alice Almeida; José Diniz; Mariana Lopes Martins; Thaís Mendonça Maia Wanderley Cruz de Freitas; Marine Raquel Diniz da Rosa
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.