ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Embracing the psychological complexity of tinnitus-correlated distress: from descriptive nosology to person-centred explanatory models.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic tinnitus presents a psychosomatic paradox: while the perceptual characteristics of the sound are often similar across individuals and typically linked to hearing loss, the distress it evokes differs substantially. This distress predicts the experiential quality, persistence, and chronification of tinnitus perception, thereby shaping what is recognised as chronic tinnitus or tinnitus disorder in clinical practice. In conceptualizing distress, two interconnected processes of medicalisation can be observed: first, the framing of distressing tinnitus as a medical disorder in its own right; and second, the framing of distress itself as a psychiatric "comorbidity." However, the dominant medical-descriptive frameworks in psychiatry that underpin these practices rely on atheoretical, categorical systems to classify emotional distress. These systems have well-documented limits in reliability, validity, and clinical utility and tend to privilege biomedical explanations over psychosocial context. At this juncture, the current paper examines three conceptual approaches to distress: (1) medical-nomothetic-descriptive, (2) psychological-nomothetic-descriptive, and (3) psychological-idiographic-descriptive - which becomes explanatory upon considering individuals' life contexts, meaning-based appraisals, and symptom functions. For both clinical and research practice in chronic tinnitus, we argue for a shift towards psychological-explanatory-idiographic models that account for person-specific interactions of vulnerability, stress , emotions, and coping (VSEC), linked through personal meaning. This aligns with a broader momentum towards idiographic, process-based therapies as the future of psychological intervention. Although meaning-centred formulations challenge nomothetic research methodologies, they offer clearer clinical reasoning and help avoid unhelpful medicalisation beyond somatic factors which contribute to initial symptom onset.
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.