ArticlePloS one2024
The impact of tinnitus on Dutch general practices: A retrospective study using routine healthcare data.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGlobal prevalence of tinnitus (15%) is rising, indicating an increase in patients seeking help for this common symptom and potentially affecting the accessibility of care. The aim of this retrospective study is twofold; describing the morbidity trends and healthcare utilization among patients with recorded tinnitus at Dutch general practices (GP), and comparing overall healthcare utilization before and after tinnitus to similar patients without recorded tinnitus. PATIENTS AND
methodsRoutine electronic health records data from general practices participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used to describe trends in age- and sex-specific incidence, contact prevalence and healthcare utilization (contacts, prescriptions, and referrals to secondary care) for tinnitus from 2012 to 2021. Patients with tinnitus were matched (on sex, age, general practice) to patients without tinnitus (1:2). Healthcare use one year before and after a first GP contact for tinnitus (period) was analyzed with negative binominal (number of contacts) and logistic regression (prescriptions or referrals).
resultsBetween 2012 and 2021, tinnitus incidence increased by 33% (3.3 to 4.4 per 1000 person-years). The largest increase was observed among 20-44-years (2.6 to 3.8 per 1000 person-years). One year after the first GP contact for tinnitus, patients with tinnitus utilized healthcare more frequently than patients without tinnitus. The referral rate increased the most (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.83-2.16). The year before tinnitus at the GP, patients with tinnitus had more often GP consultations (IRR 1.16, 95%CI 1.12-1.19) and referrals (OR 1.09, 95%CI 1.01-1.18) than patients without tinnitus.
conclusionAlthough GPs saw an increased number of patients with tinnitus, absolute numbers of patients remained low. Patients' healthcare use increased after the first tinnitus complaint at the GP, mainly for secondary care. Yet, they already used healthcare services more frequently than similar patients without tinnitus. Insight into possible explanations for these health disparities could contribute to targeted prevention.
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.