Hearing More to Hear Less: A Scoping Review of Hearing Aids for Tinnitus Relief

Abstract

Background Tinnitus, the perception of a sound in absence of an external auditory source, can significantly impact ones' quality of life. As tinnitus is often associated with hearing loss, hearing aids have been proposed for tinnitus relief in literature for more than 70 years. While there is a long history of clinical work and research on this topic, there is a need for recent literature to be reviewed and guide decision making in tinnitus management. Objective The aim of this scoping review is to provide an update of the available evidence on hearing aids for tinnitus, focusing on the effect of sound amplification, to draw conclusions for clinical practice and identify gaps in the field. A consultation exercise was included to discuss current issues that practitioners and carers themselves face but remain under-researched. Design This scoping review was conducted based on the six-stage framework of Arksey et al. (2005). Studies were included if they investigated hearing aids for tinnitus and were published after 2011. Databases of PubMed and Scopus were explored on the 16th of November 2020. The search was limited to English manuscripts. A total of 28 primary research studies were selected. Results Positive results of hearing aids for tinnitus relief were shown by 68 % of the studies, whereas 14 % demonstrated no change in tinnitus perception. As the quality of the evidence across studies was variable, no consensus can be reached regarding the use of hearing aids as a treatment for tinnitus. Nevertheless, recent studies were more likely to focus on optimizing the effect of hearing aids and better predicting which tinnitus patients benefit from hearing aids. The experts stated that the findings were in agreement with their view on the scientific evidence and they emphasized the importance of reaching consensus. Conclusions The majority of the studies supported the use of hearing aids for tinnitus relief. Hence, there was some scientific support for it, but the quality of evidence was questioned. Stronger methodology in future studies is needed to reach consensus and support clinical guidelines development.