ReviewTrends in hearing
Designing Clinical Trials for Assessing the Effectiveness of Interventions for Tinnitus.
Review in Trends in hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applicability of the real ear measurement for audiological intervention of tinnitus.Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngologyTrial
- Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for Managing Tinnitus, Hyperacusis, and Misophonia: The 2025 Tonndorf Lecture.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Consensus Statements on Tinnitus Assessment and Treatment Outcome Evaluation: A Delphi Study by the Korean Tinnitus Study Group.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Tinnitus Guidelines and Their Evidence Base.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Development and Preliminary Evaluation of the Tinnitus Severity Short Form.American journal of audiology · 2021Article
- Recommendations on Collecting and Storing Samples for Genetic Studies in Hearing and Tinnitus Research.Ear and hearingArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In the face of finite resources, allocations of research and health-care funding are dependent upon high-quality evidence. Historically, tinnitus has been the poor cousin of hearing science, with low-quality clinical research providing unreliable estimates of effect and with devices marketed for tinnitus without strong evidence for those product claims. However, the tinnitus field is changing. Key opinion leaders have recently made calls to the field to improve the design, implementation, and reporting of clinical trials, and there is growing intersectoral collaboration. The Tonndorf Lecture presented at the 1st World Tinnitus Congress and the 12th International Tinnitus Seminar in Warsaw, Poland, provided an opportunity to reflect on the present and future progress of tinnitus research and treatment and what is needed for the field to achieve success. The content of that lecture is summarized in this article. The main debate concerns the selection and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of tinnitus. Comprehensive reviews of the literature confirm the diversity of the personal impact of tinnitus and illustrate a lack of consensus in what aspects of tinnitus should be assessed and reported in a clinical trial. An innovative project is described which engages the global tinnitus community (patients and professionals alike) in working together. This project seeks to improve future tinnitus research by creating an evidence-based consensus about minimum reporting standards for outcomes in clinical trials of a tinnitus intervention. The output will be a core set of important and critical outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.