Objectives:Chronic tinnitus is effectively treated through cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Both group and individual CBT for tinnitus are effective, but no study has directly compared the two. The current study explores group versus individual CBT for tinnitus. Design:A multiple-baseline single-case experimental design was employed to observe changes within/between individual and group treatments. Six participants started a 10-week CBT protocol and were equally divided into individual or group treatment. Participants were exchanged between treatments at random time points. Diary data included 14 variables on tinnitus experience (e.g. annoyance and distraction) and wellbeing (e.g. happiness and stress). Five male participants (59- to 67-year-old) completed treatment. Results:Randomization tests comparing means between individual and group treatments did not reveal significant differences. Analysis of data overlap and trend (Tau-U) revealed minor significant improvements for seven variables (50%) in group treatment as compared to individual treatment. Diminished happiness and activity levels were observed in participants who went from group to individual treatment. Conclusions:Low effect sizes and homogeneity of sample restrict the generalizability of data. Group CBT indicated potential benefits when compared to individual CBT. Social learning may be an underlying process in group delivery boosting tinnitus recovery. Findings are limited to male patients with chronic disabling tinnitus.

OBJECTIVES:Tinnitus is the perception of sound without an external source, affecting quality of life that can cause severe distress in approximately 1 to 3% of the population of people with tinnitus. Randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral therapy for tinnitus have demonstrated its effectiveness in improving quality of life, but the effects of their implementation on a large scale in routine practice remains unknown. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of stepped-care cognitive behavioral therapy for tinnitus delivered in a tertiary audiological center of a regional hospital. Second, we wished to examine predictors of favorable outcome.DESIGN:Four hundred three adults with chronic tinnitus were enrolled in this prospective observational study (at 3 months, N=334, 8 months, N=261; 12 months, N=214). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life as measured by the Health Utilities Index III (HUI-III) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were self-reported levels of tinnitus-related distress, disability, affective distress and tinnitus-related negative beliefs and fear. Measures were completed pre-intervention at 3 months, 8 months, and 12 months. Multilevel modeling was used to examine effects and their predictors.RESULTS:Younger participants with lower levels of tinnitus distress were more likely to dropout while those with higher tinnitus distress at baseline and quality of life were more likely to receive step 2 of treatment. MLM analyses revealed, with one exception, no relation between any baseline variable and outcome change over time. Most participants' improvement exceeded minimally clinical important difference criteria for quality of life, tinnitus-related handicap, and tinnitus distress.CONCLUSIONS:Results from this large pragmatic study complements those from randomized controlled trials of cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic tinnitus distress and supports its implementation under "real-world" conditions.

Aims and hypothesesIn an environment of absolute silence, researchers have found many of their participants to perceive phantom sounds (tinnitus). With this between-subject experiment, we aimed to elaborate on these research findings, and specifically investigated whether–in line with the fear-avoidance model of tinnitus perception and reactivity–fear or level of perceived threat influences the incidence and perceptual qualities of phantom sound percepts in an anechoic room. We investigated the potential role of individual differences in anxiety, negative affect, noise sensitivity and subclinical hearing loss. We hypothesized that participants who experience a higher level of threat would direct their attention more to the auditory system, leading to the perception of tinnitus-like sounds, which would otherwise be subaudible, and that under conditions of increased threat, narrowing of attention would lead to perceptual distortions.MethodsIn total, N = 78 normal-hearing volunteers participated in this study. In general, the study sample consisted of young, mostly female, university students. Their hearing was evaluated using gold-standard pure tone audiometry and a speech-in-noise self-test (Digit Triplet Test), which is a sensitive screening test to identify subclinical hearing loss. Prior to a four-minute stay in an anechoic room, we randomized participants block design-wise in a threat (N = 37) and no-threat condition (N = 41). Participants in the threat condition were deceived about their hearing and were led to believe that staying in the room would potentially harm their hearing temporarily. Participants were asked whether they perceived sounds during their stay in the room and rated the perceptual qualities of sound percepts (loudness and unpleasantness). They were also asked to fill-out standardized questionnaires measuring anxiety (State–Trait Anxiety Inventory), affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) and noise sensitivity (Weinstein Noise Sensitivity Scale). The internal consistency of the questionnaires used was verified in our study sample and ranged between α = 0.61 and α = 0.90.ResultsIn line with incidence rates reported in the literature, 74% of our participants reported having heard tinnitus-like sounds in the anechoic room. Speech-in-noise identification ability was comparable for both groups of participants. The experimental manipulation of threat was proven to be effective, as indicated by significantly higher scores on a Threat Manipulation Checklist among participants in the threat condition as compared to those in the no-threat condition (p < 0.01). Nevertheless, participants in the threat condition were as likely to report tinnitus percepts as participants in the no-threat condition (p = 1), and tinnitus percepts were not rated as being louder (p = 0.76) or more unpleasant (p = 0.64) as a function of level of threat. For participants who did experience tinnitus percepts, a higher level of threat was associated with a higher degree of experienced unpleasantness (p < 0.01). These associations were absent in those who did not experience tinnitus. Higher negative affect was only slightly associated with higher ratings of tinnitus unpleasantness (p < 0.01).ConclusionWhereas our threat manipulation was successful in elevating the level of fear, it did not contribute to a higher percentage of participants perceiving tinnitus-like sounds in the threat condition. However, higher levels of perceived threat were related to a higher degree of perceived tinnitus unpleasantness. The findings of our study are drawn from a rather homogenous participant pool in terms of age, gender, and educational background, challenging conclusions that are applicable for the general population. Participants generally obtained normophoric scores on independent variables of interest: they were low anxious, low noise-sensitive, and there was little evidence for the presence of subclinical hearing loss. Possibly, there was insufficient variation in scores to find effects.

As for hypertension, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders with particular symptoms, a commonly accepted and unambiguous definition provides a common ground for researchers and clinicians to study and treat the problem. The WHO's ICD11 definition only mentions tinnitus as a nonspecific symptom of a hearing disorder, but not as a clinical entity in its own right, and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-V doesn't mention tinnitus at all. Here we propose that the tinnitus without and with associated suffering should be differentiated by distinct terms: "Tinnitus" for the former and "Tinnitus Disorder" for the latter. The proposed definition then becomes "Tinnitus is the conscious awareness of a tonal or composite noise for which there is no identifiable corresponding external acoustic source, which becomes Tinnitus Disorder "when associated with emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, and/or autonomic arousal, leading to behavioural changes and functional disability.". In other words "Tinnitus" describes the auditory or sensory component, whereas "Tinnitus Disorder" reflects the auditory component and the associated suffering. Whereas acute tinnitus may be a symptom secondary to a trauma or disease, chronic tinnitus may be considered a primary disorder in its own right. If adopted, this will advance the recognition of tinnitus disorder as a primary health condition in its own right. The capacity to measure the incidence, prevalence, and impact will help in identification of human, financial, and educational needs required to address acute tinnitus as a symptom but chronic tinnitus as a disorder.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Fear of Tinnitus Questionnaire (FTQ); a brief self-report measure of people's fears about potential cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social consequences of living with tinnitus. DESIGN Five hundred eighty-eight Dutch-speaking adults with tinnitus completed an online battery of questionnaires measuring tinnitus-related distress, fear, catastrophizing, and quality of life. The sample was randomly split into two to perform exploratory and Bayesian confirmatory factor analyses. A subsample of participants (n = 144) completed the battery of questionnaires a second time after a 2-week interval to calculate test-retest reliability and conduct a Bland-Altman analysis. Convergent and concurrent validity of the FTQ was assessed with the complete data set and measures of tinnitus-related distress as the outcome. RESULTS Exploratory factor analyses indicated that single- and three-factor FTQ models were both valid solutions. Posterior predictive p values for the Bayesian confirmatory factor analyses ranged between 0.51 and 0.53 indicating that the respective models were an excellent fit for the data. The FTQ showed excellent test-retest reliability (average value intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-0.95) and in the Bland-Altman analysis, satisfactory agreement between participants' scores after a 2-week interval. Furthermore, the FTQ demonstrated good internal reliability (α = 0.83, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.85) and added statistically significant amounts of variance to models predicting tinnitus-related distress and interference in daily life. CONCLUSIONS The FTQ has good psychometric properties and can be used to assess people's fear of tinnitus in research or clinical settings. Further work to establish the reliability and validity should be conducted and include an examination of a version of the FTQ that uses Likert-type response scales which might offer improved sensitivity.

BACKGROUND:The heterogeneity of tinnitus is substantial. Its numerous pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical manifestations have hampered fundamental and treatment research significantly. A decade ago, the Tinnitus Research Initiative introduced the Tinnitus Sample Case History Questionnaire, a case history instrument for standardised collection of information about the characteristics of the tinnitus patient. Since then, a number of studies have been published which characterise individuals and groups using data collected with this questionnaire. However, its use has been restricted to a clinical setting and to the evaluation of people with tinnitus only. In addition, it is limited in the ability to capture relevant comorbidities and evaluate their temporal relationship with tinnitus. METHOD:Here we present a new case history instrument which is comprehensive in scope and can be answered by people with and without tinnitus alike. This 'European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire' (ESIT-SQ) was developed with specific attention to questions about potential risk factors for tinnitus (including demographics, lifestyle, general medical and otological histories), and tinnitus characteristics (including perceptual characteristics, modulating factors, and associations with co-existing conditions). It was first developed in English, then translated into Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish, thus having broad applicability and supporting international collaboration. CONCLUSIONS:With respect to better understanding tinnitus profiles, we anticipate the ESIT-SQ to be a starting point for comprehensive multi-variate analyses of tinnitus. Data collected with the ESIT-SQ can allow establishment of patterns that distinguish tinnitus from non-tinnitus, and definition of common sets of tinnitus characteristics which might be indicated by the presence of otological or comorbid systemic diseases for which tinnitus is a known symptom.

BACKGROUND Tinnitus affects up to 21% of the adult population with an estimated 1% to 3% experiencing severe problems. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a collection of psychological treatments based on the cognitive and behavioural traditions in psychology and often used to treat people suffering from tinnitus. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects and safety of CBT for tinnitus in adults. SEARCH METHODS The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2019, Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 25 November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT versus no intervention, audiological care, tinnitus retraining therapy or any other active treatment in adult participants with tinnitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were the impact of tinnitus on disease-specific quality of life and serious adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes were: depression, anxiety, general health-related quality of life, negatively biased interpretations of tinnitus and other adverse effects. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We included 28 studies (mostly from Europe) with a total of 2733 participants. All participants had had tinnitus for at least three months and their average age ranged from 43 to 70 years. The duration of the CBT ranged from 3 to 22 weeks and it was mostly conducted in hospitals or online. There were four comparisons and we were interested in outcomes at end of treatment, and 6 and 12 months follow-up. The results below only refer to outcomes at end of treatment due to an absence of evidence at the other follow-up time points. CBT versus no intervention/wait list control Fourteen studies compared CBT with no intervention/wait list control. For the primary outcome, CBT may reduce the impact of tinnitus on quality of life at treatment end (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.83 to -0.30; 10 studies; 537 participants; low certainty). Re-expressed as a score on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI; range 0 to 100) this is equivalent to a score 10.91 points lower in the CBT group, with an estimated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for this scale being 7 points. Seven studies, rated as moderate certainty, either reported or informed us via personal communication about serious adverse effects. CBT probably results in little or no difference in adverse effects: six studies reported none and in one study one participant in the CBT condition worsened (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.87). For the secondary outcomes, CBT may result in a slight reduction in depression (SMD -0.34, 95% CI-0.60 to -0.08; 8 studies; 502 participants; low certainty). However, we are uncertain whether CBT reduces anxiety, improves health-related quality of life or reduces negatively biased interpretations of tinnitus (all very low certainty). From seven studies, no other adverse effects were reported (moderate certainty). CBT versus audiological care Three studies compared CBT with audiological care. CBT probably reduces the impact of tinnitus on quality of life when compared with audiological care as measured by the THI (range 0 to 100; mean difference (MD) -5.65, 95% CI -9.79 to -1.50; 3 studies; 444 participants) (moderate certainty; MCID = 7 points). No serious adverse effects occurred in the two included studies reporting these, thus risk ratios were not calculated (moderate certainty). The evidence suggests that CBT may slightly reduce depression but may result in little or no difference in anxiety or health-related quality of life (all low certainty) when compared with audiological care. CBT may reduce negatively biased interpretations of tinnitus when compared with audiological care (low certainty). No other adverse effects were reported for either group (moderate certainty). CBT versus tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) One study compared CBT with TRT (including bilateral sound generators as per TRT protocol). CBT may reduce the impact of tinnitus on quality of life as measured by the THI when compared with TRT (range 0 to 100) (MD -15.79, 95% CI -27.91 to -3.67; 1 study; 42 participants; low certainty). For serious adverse effects three participants deteriorated during the study: one in the CBT (n = 22) and two in the TRT group (n = 20) (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.64; low certainty). We are uncertain whether CBT reduces depression and anxiety or improves health-related quality of life (low certainty). CBT may reduce negatively biased interpretations of tinnitus. No data were available for other adverse effects. CBT versus other active control Sixteen studies compared CBT with another active control (e.g. relaxation, information, Internet-based discussion forums). CBT may reduce the impact of tinnitus on quality of life when compared with other active treatments (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05; 12 studies; 966 participants; low certainty). Re-expressed as a THI score this is equivalent to 5.84 points lower in the CBT group than the other active control group (MCID = 7 points). One study reported that three participants deteriorated: one in the CBT and two in the information only group (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 18.36; low certainty). CBT may reduce depression and anxiety (both low certainty). We are uncertain whether CBT improves health-related quality of life compared with other control. CBT probably reduces negatively biased interpretations of tinnitus compared with other treatments. No data were available for other adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS CBT may be effective in reducing the negative impact that tinnitus can have on quality of life. There is, however, an absence of evidence at 6 or 12 months follow-up. There is also some evidence that adverse effects may be rare in adults with tinnitus receiving CBT, but this could be further investigated. CBT for tinnitus may have small additional benefit in reducing symptoms of depression although uncertainty remains due to concerns about the quality of the evidence. Overall, there is limited evidence for CBT for tinnitus improving anxiety, health-related quality of life or negatively biased interpretations of tinnitus.

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.

There 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.

A growing body of empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated that much publically and privately funded research is reported in away that makes it difficult for the findings to be included in evidence syntheses or used by researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Poorly reported studies thus represent a significant waste of scarce resources. Reporting guidelines are one strategy that has been increasingly used as a method to improve the completeness or usability of primary and secondary research across a broad range of disciplines including psychology. We present a synopsis of two studies investigating the impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluation with Nonrandomised Designs statement and factors that affect authors' and journal editors' use of it and other reporting guidelines. We also make recommendations for future guideline development or revisions based on our experiences, provide details of resources for psychologists, and make suggestions for future research and recommendations for improving the transparency of reporting of psychological research.

ObjectivesTo identify and understand, through data from multiple sources, some of the factors that affect authors' and editors' decisions to use reporting guidelines in the publication of health research.DesignMixed methods study comprising an online survey and semi-structured interviews with a sample of authors (online survey: n = 56; response rate = 32%; semi-structured interviews: n = 5) and journal editors (online survey: n = 43; response rate = 27%; semi-structured interviews: n = 6) involved in publishing health and medical research. Participants were recruited from an earlier study examining the effectiveness of the TREND reporting guideline.ResultsFour types of factors interacted to affect authors' and editors' likelihood of reporting guideline use; individual (e.g. having multiple reasons for use of reporting guidelines); the professional culture in which people work; environmental (e.g. policies of journals); and, practical (e.g. having time to use reporting guidelines). Having multiple reasons for using reporting guidelines was a particularly salient factor in facilitating reporting guidelines use for both groups of participants.ConclusionsImproving the completeness and consistency of reporting of research studies is critical to the integrity and synthesis of health research. The use of reporting guidelines offers one potentially efficient and effective means for achieving this, but decisions to use (or not use) reporting guidelines take many factors into account. These findings could be used to inform future studies that might, for example, test the factors that we have identified within a wider theoretical framework for understanding changes in professional practices. The use of reporting guidelines by senior professionals appears to shape the expectations of what constitutes best practice and can be assimilated into the culture of a field or discipline. Without evidence of effectiveness of reporting guidelines, and sustained, multifaceted efforts to improve reporting, little progress seems likely to be made.

OBJECTIVESWe assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality.METHODSWe extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND.RESULTSBetween 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings.CONCLUSIONSTREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.