ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2018
Individual Reliability of the Standard Clinical Method vs Patient-Centered Tinnitus Likeness Rating for Assessment of Tinnitus Pitch and Loudness Matching.
Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Prospective Study of the Effect of Tinnitus Sound Matching Degree on the Efficacy of Customized Sound Therapy in Patients with Chronic Tinnitus.ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties · 2022Article
- Principles and Methods for Psychoacoustic Evaluation of Tinnitus.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021Article
- Comparing Three Established Methods for Tinnitus Pitch Matching With Respect to Reliability, Matching Duration, and Subjective Satisfaction.Trends in 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Current individualized sound therapies for tinnitus rely on tinnitus pitch assessment, which is commonly derived from the standard clinical 2-alternative forced-choice (2-AFC) approach driven by the examiner. However, this method is limited by lack of individual test-retest reliability and focuses on a single rather than multiple tinnitus frequencies. Objective: To assess individual test-retest reliability of the 2-AFC, with a single final frequency (and corresponding loudness), and the tinnitus likeness rating (TLR), with the participant exposed to the entire audible frequency spectrum, from which 3 dominant frequencies and corresponding loudness were extracted. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case series, participants with tinnitus underwent testing twice with both methods at a 1-month interval by experienced clinicians from January 6 through March 17, 2017. Each clinician tested each patient only once at visit 1 or 2 in a university audiology training setting with standardized equipment and was blind to previous assessment. Participants with bilateral or unilateral chronic tinnitus for longer than 6 months, in good health, without total deafness in either ear, and without cerumen in the ear canal were recruited through advertisements (community and clinics) and word of mouth (volunteer sample). The audiologists were likewise participants in the planned comparison between TLR and 2-AFC in the test-retest measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test-retest concordance with 95% CIs for each method, calculated as the proportion of participants with the same final frequency between the 2 visits (2-AFC) or with at least 1 concordant dominant frequency (TLR) as well as loudness differences of no greater than 10 dB. Results: The study sample included 31 participants (55% men; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [13.7] years). For TLR, 26 of 31 participants had at least 1 concordant dominant frequency between the 2 visits (proportion, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95), whereas for 2-AFC, 7 of 31 participants had a concordant final tinnitus pitch in either ear (proportion, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.41). Loudness reliability followed the same pattern, with more concordant loudness levels in the TLR (proportion, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88) than in the 2-AFC (proportion, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.05-0.85). Mean time taken to complete the tests was less than 15 minutes, and general appreciation by participants with tinnitus and audiologists were overall similar for both. Conclusions and Relevance: Superior test-retest concordance can be demonstrated at the individual level using the several dominant frequencies extracted from the patient-centered TLR.
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.