| Literature DB >> 27515471 |
Thomas Ostermann1, Katja Boehm2, Martin Kusatz3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is an increasingly serious problem for health care systems. According to epidemiological data, 7-14 % of outpatients have asked their physician about tinnitus and management strategies. Integrative outpatient treatments are currently regarded as promising therapeutic approaches for managing tinnitus. In this article we report on the treatment success of an outpatient tinnitus treatment center in Germany.Entities:
Keywords: Cohort-study; Multiple imputation; Out-patients; Regression to the mean; Tinnitus
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27515471 PMCID: PMC4982314 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1644-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Fig. 1Scheme of the treatment
Socio-demographic and anamnestic data (absolute numbers and percentages or mean ± standard deviation and median)
| Male | Female | Total | No answer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 2.736 (49.9 %) | 2.688 (49.0 %) | 5.480 | 56 (1.0 %) |
| Age in years | 49.8 ± 14.6; 50.0 | 49.8 ± 13.2; 50.0 | 49.8 ± 13.9; 50.0 | 59 (2.4 %) |
| Marital status | ||||
| ▪ single | 461 (16.9 %) | 387 (14.4 %) | 848 (15.5 %) | 73 |
| Graduation | ||||
| ▪ Lower Secondary School | 885 (32.4 %) | 985 (36.6 %) | 1874 (34.2 %) | 139 (2.5 %) |
| Profession | ||||
| ▪ Work-men | 204 (7.4 %) | 532 (19.8 %) | 737 (13.4 %) | 133 (2.4 %) |
| Duration of tinnitus in month | 54.2 ± 75.5, 21.0 | 66.1 ± 88.5, 24.0 | 60.2 ± 82.5, 24.0 | 239 (9.6 %) |
| Loudness of ear-ringing (from 0 = „not at all“ to 10 = “maximum”) | 5.8 ± 2.1, 6.0 | 5.7 ± 2.2, 6.0 | 5.7 ± 2.1, 6.0 | 278 (11.2 %) |
| Disruption due to of ear-ringing (from 0 = „not at all“ to 10 = “maximum”) | 6.4 ± 2.5, 6.0 | 6.1 ± 2.4, 6.0 | 6.2 ± 2.4, 6.0 | 251 (10.1 %) |
| Restrictions due to ear-ringing (from 0 = „not at all“ to 10 = “maximum”) | 4.8 ± 2.8, 5.0 | 4.5 ± 2.7, 4.0 | 4.7 ± 2.8, 5.0 | 278 (11.2 %) |
Estimated treatment effects adjusted for regression-to-the-mean (in brackets: 95 % confidence intervals) (n = 5.421)
| Treatment effect (RTM adjusted) | Standardised effecta (RTM adjusted) |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| End of treatment | |||||
| All patients | −18.6 | (−18.2 to −18.9) | −1.03 | (−1.01 to −1.05) | <.0001 |
| Men | −19.3 | (−18.8 to −19.8) | −1.09 | (−1.06 to −1.12) | <.0001 |
| Women | −17.8 | (−17.3 to −18.3) | −0.96 | (−0.94 to −0.99) | <.0001 |
| Follow-up | |||||
| All patients | −16.9 | (−29.0 to −4.8) | −0.93 | (−1.60 to −0.23) | 0.0342 |
| Men | −17.3 | (−22.8 to −12.7) | −0.98 | (−1.29 to −0.66) | 0.0056 |
| Women | −16.5 | (−22.7 to −10.4) | −0.89 | (−1.23 to −0.56) | 0.0082 |
aStandardized effects: treatment effects divided by the standard deviations at baseline
Effects are based on the TQ total score
Estimated treatment effects adjusted for regression-to-the-mean (in brackets: 95 % confidence intervals) (n = 5.421)
| Mean | Treatment effect (RTM adjusted) | Standardised effecta (RTM adjusted) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| End of treatment | ||||
| Emotional distress | 11.3 | −5.9 (−6.1 to −5.8) | −1.00 (−1.02 to −0.97) | <.0001 |
| Cognitive distress | 8.0 | −4.3 (−4.4 to −4.2) | −1.03 (−1.06 to −1.00) | <.0001 |
| Intrusiveness | 9.8 | −3.7 (−3.8 to −3.6) | −0.98 (−1.01 to −0.96) | <.0001 |
| Auditory perceptual difficulties | 5.8 | −2.4 (−2.5 to −2.3) | −0.61 (−0.63 to −0.59) | <.0001 |
| Sleep disturbances | 2.8 | −1.1 (−1.2 to −1.0) | −0.41 (−0.43 to −0.38) | <.0001 |
| Somatic complaints | 1.9 | −0.7 (−0.8 to −0.6) | −0.31 (−0.34 to −0.28) | <.0001 |
| Follow-up | ||||
| Emotional distress | 11.3 | −4.2 (−5.2 to −2.3) | −0.67 (−0.96 to −0.39) | <.0001 |
| Cognitive distress | 8.0 | −2.5 (−7.9 to +2.9) | −0.60 (−1.90 to +0.70) | 0.1126 |
| Intrusiveness | 9.8 | −3.4 (−4.1 to −2.7) | −0.90 (−1.09 to −0.72) | <.0001 |
| Auditory perceptual difficulties | 5.8 | −0.1 (−2.2 to +2.1) | −0.03 (−0.56 to +0.53) | 0.9273 |
| Sleep disturbances | 2.8 | −0.9 (−2.0 to +0.2) | −0.33 (−0.72 to +0.07) | 0.0702 |
| Somatic complaints | 1.9 | −0.4 (−2.8 to +2.0) | −0.17 (−1.27 to +0.94) | 0.4013 |
a Standardized effects: treatment effects divided by the standard deviations at baseline
Fig. 2Estimated treatment effects adjusted for regression-to-the-mean at the end of treatment for various assumptions on the mean in the target population (error bars show 95 % confidence intervals) (n = 5.421)
Fig. 3Estimated treatment effects adjusted for regression-to-the-mean at the end of treatment (black squares) and at follow-up (grey cirlces) for various assumptions on the mean in the target population (error bars show 95 % confidence intervals) (n = 5.421)