ArticlePloS one2021
Content validity of the tinnitus outcome questionnaire for sound management.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Effectiveness of a Smartphone Application for Tinnitus Relief.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standardized instruments are often used to monitor one's progress in tinnitus relief although they were developed to screen and diagnose tinnitus. The need for the development for a tinnitus outcome assessment tool is high in the field of audiology and otolaryngology. The purpose of this study was to develop a tinnitus outcome questionnaire for sound management (listening to sound stimuli for tinnitus relief) and assess its content validity. A total of 32 questions with six domains (Tinnitus characteristics, the impact of tinnitus, tinnitus and hearing issues, handedness, tinnitus management, and sound management outcome) were generated after closely investigating major tinnitus questionnaires used worldwide (i.e. Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire) as well as literature. Ten healthcare professionals evaluated the appropriateness of the questionnaire items on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 is strongly inappropriate and 5 is strongly appropriate. Content relevance was assessed by computing the content validity index with the cut-off value of 0.75. Each response was first weighted as follows: 1 = 0; 2 = 0.25; 3 = 0.5; 4 = 0.75; and 5 = 1.0. The weighted average was then calculated. Items with a content validity index less than 0.75 were discarded and some items were revised according to the experts' feedback. As a result, 31 out of the 32 items had the content validity index higher than 0.75, indicating that the items are appropriate to obtain information about the six domains. Reflecting the experts' feedback, some questions were revised to be more specific. The study provides a baseline structure regarding potential questions to be included in a tinnitus outcome questionnaire for sound management. Development and standardization of such questionnaire would be a pathway to validating tinnitus relief via sound therapy.
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.