BackgroundThere is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus.MethodsRecords were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded.ResultsTwo hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used.ConclusionsOur findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments.PROSPERO registrationThe systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525. Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1399-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose:Genetic contributions to tinnitus have been difficult to determine due to the heterogeneity of the condition and its broad etiology. Here, we evaluated the genetic and nongenetic influences on self-reported tinnitus from the Swedish Twin Registry (STR).Methods:Cross-sectional data from the STR was obtained. Casewise concordance rates (the risk of one twin being affected given that his/her twin partner has tinnitus) were compared for monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs (N = 10,464 concordant and discordant twin pairs) and heritability coefficients (the proportion of the total variance attributable to genetic factors) were calculated using biometrical model fitting procedures.Results:Stratification of tinnitus cases into subtypes according to laterality (unilateral versus bilateral) revealed that heritability of bilateral tinnitus was 0.56; however, it was 0.27 for unilateral tinnitus. Heritability was greater in men (0.68) than in women (0.41). However, when female pairs younger than 40 years of age were selected, heritability of 0.62 was achieved with negligible effects of shared environment.Conclusion:Unlike unilateral tinnitus, bilateral tinnitus is influenced by genetic factors and might constitute a genetic subtype. Overall, our study provides the initial evidence for a tinnitus phenotype with a genetic influence.Genet Med advance online publication 23 March 2017

Background: Though clinical guidelines for assessment and treatment of chronic subjective tinnitus do exist, a comprehensive review of those guidelines has not been performed. The objective of this review was to identify current clinical guidelines, and compare their recommendations for the assessment and treatment of subjective tinnitus in adults.Method: We systematically searched a range of sources for clinical guidelines (as defined by the Institute of Medicine, United States) for the assessment and/or treatment of subjective tinnitus in adults. No restrictions on language or year of publication were applied to guidelines.Results: Clinical guidelines from Denmark, Germany, Sweden, The Netherlands, and the United States were included in the review. There was a high level of consistency across the guidelines with regard to recommendations for audiometric assessment, physical examination, use of a validated questionnaire(s) to assess tinnitus related distress, and referral to a psychologist when required. Cognitive behavioral treatment for tinnitus related distress, use of hearing aids in instances of hearing loss and recommendations against the use of medicines were consistent across the included guidelines. Differences between the guidelines centered on the use of imaging in assessment procedures and sound therapy as a form of treatment for tinnitus distress respectively.Conclusion: Given the level of commonality across tinnitus guidelines from different countries the development of a European guideline for the assessment and treatment of subjective tinnitus in adults seems feasible. This guideline would have the potential to benefit the large number of clinicians in countries where clinical guidelines do not yet exist, and would support standardization of treatment for patients across Europe.

Many individuals with tinnitus report experiencing hyperacusis (enhanced sensitivity to sounds). However, estimates of the association between hyperacusis and tinnitus is lacking. Here, we investigate this relationship in a Swedish study. A total of 3645 participants (1984 with tinnitus and 1661 without tinnitus) were enrolled via LifeGene, a study from the general Swedish population, aged 18–90 years, and provided information on socio-demographic characteristics, as well as presence of hyperacusis and its severity. Tinnitus presence and severity were self-reported or assessed using the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI). Phenotypes of tinnitus with (n = 1388) or without (n = 1044) hyperacusis were also compared. Of 1661 participants without tinnitus, 1098 (66.1%) were women and 563 were men (33.9%), and the mean (SD) age was 45.1 (12.9). Of 1984 participants with tinnitus, 1034 (52.1%) were women and 950 (47.9%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 47.7 (14.0) years. Hyperacusis was associated with any tinnitus [Odds ratio (OR) 3.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.99–4.13], self-reported severe tinnitus (OR 7.43, 95% CI 5.06–10.9), and THI ≥ 58 (OR 12.1, 95% CI 7.06–20.6). The association with THI ≥ 58 was greater with increasing severity of hyperacusis, the ORs being 8.15 (95% CI 4.68–14.2) for moderate and 77.4 (95% CI 35.0–171.3) for severe hyperacusis. No difference between sexes was observed in the association between hyperacusis and tinnitus. The occurrence of hyperacusis in severe tinnitus is as high as 80%, showing a very tight relationship. Discriminating the pathophysiological mechanisms between the two conditions in cases of severe tinnitus will be challenging, and optimized study designs are necessary to better understand the mechanisms behind the strong relationship between hyperacusis and tinnitus.

No abstract