Sarah Michiels1,2, Emilie Cardon2,3, Annick Gilles2,4,3, Hazel Goedhart5, Markku Vesala5, Winfried Schlee6. 1. REVAL Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of the University Regensburg at Bezirksklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 4. Department of Translational Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 5. Department of Education, Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Tinnitus Hub Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus can be influenced by changes in somatosensory afference from the cervical spine or temporomandibular area, then called somatosensory or somatic tinnitus (ST). In 2018, a new set of diagnostic criteria for ST was agreed upon by a large group of ST experts. Currently, however, it still requires extensive and specific expertise to diagnose ST correctly. The next step in the development of easily applicable diagnostic criteria is to assess the diagnostic value of each individual criterion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was, therefore, to further investigate the diagnostic value of these criteria, validate them empirically, and identify their sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: An online survey, questioning the presence of 12 diagnostic criteria for ST in a convenience sample of participants with tinnitus, was launched on the online forum Tinnitus Talk, managed by Tinnitus Hub. Participants were divided into three groups: a group with no somatic influence, a group with some somatic influence and a group with large somatic influence on their tinnitus. Chi-square tests were used to calculate differences between these groups. Afterward, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and pre- and posttest probabilities were calculated for each ST diagnostic criterion. For this analysis, all patients with some and large somatic influence were compared as one group to the group with no somatic influence. RESULTS: In total, 8221 participants filled out the online survey. As expected, the diagnostic criteria for ST are more prevalent in the groups with somatic influence, but the criterium of tinnitus modulation also often occurs in the group with no somatic influence. The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of both tinnitus and pain complaints have the highest positive LR (6.29 and 10.72, respectively), next to the influence of certain postures on the tinnitus (+LR: 6.04). To rule out ST, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles are most suited, as they decrease the posttest probability to 18% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of tinnitus and neck or jaw pain and the influence of certain postures are most suited to use as a single criterion for identifying patients with a somatic influence on their tinnitus. On the other hand, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles is valid criterion to rule out a somatic influence. Additional analysis is needed to identify clusters of symptoms and criteria to further aid ST diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Tinnitus can be influenced by changes in somatosensory afference from the cervical spine or temporomandibular area, then called somatosensory or somatic tinnitus (ST). In 2018, a new set of diagnostic criteria for ST was agreed upon by a large group of ST experts. Currently, however, it still requires extensive and specific expertise to diagnose ST correctly. The next step in the development of easily applicable diagnostic criteria is to assess the diagnostic value of each individual criterion. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was, therefore, to further investigate the diagnostic value of these criteria, validate them empirically, and identify their sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: An online survey, questioning the presence of 12 diagnostic criteria for ST in a convenience sample of participants with tinnitus, was launched on the online forum Tinnitus Talk, managed by Tinnitus Hub. Participants were divided into three groups: a group with no somatic influence, a group with some somatic influence and a group with large somatic influence on their tinnitus. Chi-square tests were used to calculate differences between these groups. Afterward, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and pre- and posttest probabilities were calculated for each ST diagnostic criterion. For this analysis, all patients with some and large somatic influence were compared as one group to the group with no somatic influence. RESULTS: In total, 8221 participants filled out the online survey. As expected, the diagnostic criteria for ST are more prevalent in the groups with somatic influence, but the criterium of tinnitus modulation also often occurs in the group with no somatic influence. The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of both tinnitus and pain complaints have the highest positive LR (6.29 and 10.72, respectively), next to the influence of certain postures on the tinnitus (+LR: 6.04). To rule out ST, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles are most suited, as they decrease the posttest probability to 18% and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of tinnitus and neck or jaw pain and the influence of certain postures are most suited to use as a single criterion for identifying patients with a somatic influence on their tinnitus. On the other hand, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles is valid criterion to rule out a somatic influence. Additional analysis is needed to identify clusters of symptoms and criteria to further aid ST diagnosis.
Authors: Laure Jacquemin; Sara Demoen; Sarah Michiels; Annick Gilles; Hanne Vermeersch; Iris Joossen; Olivier M Vanderveken; Marc J W Lammers; Annick Timmermans; Vincent Van Rompaey; David Baguley Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 3.236