Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review

Abstract

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires. Methods A systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English. Objective Create a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics. Main outcome measure The number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population. Results A total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented. Discussion Two separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific. Conclusion Many questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017058155

Measurement Properties of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory: A Systematic Review

“…The main strength of this review is that it included not only the original development study by Jacobsen and Newman, but also all the relevant studies on the measurement properties of the DHI in the English language that have been published ever since. We used the extensive guidance of the current COSMIN recommendations (12)(13)(14) to ensure that all relevant properties were assessed in a standardized way (3). Clearly some form of subjectivity is inevitable when assessing risk of bias and grading of published evidence.…”

“…It can impair activities of daily living, cause falls and absence from work, and significantly reduce quality of life (2). In order to establish the effectiveness of treatment in patients with dizziness, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used besides more objective measurements (3). A commonly used questionnaire to measure the self-perceived handicapping effects imposed by dizziness is the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), developed by Jacobson and Newman in 1990 (4).…”

The International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for the Assessment of Hearing in People with Osteogenesis Imperfecta

“…To our knowledge, no hearing-related PROMs were used in OI research to date. Systematic reviews of Viergever et al (26) and Powell et al (27) were used to select PROMs. A systematic search on PubMed was performed to identify pediatric PROMs.…”

Hearing and Functioning in Everyday Life Questionnaire: Development and Validation of an ICF-Based Instrument

“…There is low consensus regarding which instruments should be used in AR for adults. Furthermore, many of the instruments that have been developed over several decades have not been adequately validated or updated (for reviews, see Bentler & Kramer 2000; Manchaiah et al 2019; Viergever et al 2021). The results of these reviews indicate that the psychometric testing of audiological instruments has been largely overlooked.…”

“…Despite an abundance of research implicating the importance of a multidimensional approach and a need to include aspects of everyday life in AR assessment (Stephens et al 2001; Montano 2007; Alfakir et al 2015; van Leeuwen et al 2017; Humes 2021; Karlsson et al 2021), only two instruments have embraced the biopsychosocial perspective of the ICF in measuring functioning (Alfakir & Holmes 2017; Leeuwen et al 2020). The two instruments are an e-tool (developed by Leeuwen et al 2020) and an instrument developed and validated for a group of older adults with hearing loss (Alfakir & Holmes 2017). However, there are no self-assessment instruments that measure everyday functioning multidimensionally for adults with hearing loss that can be used as a foundation in the initial part of AR and/or as an outcome measure to evaluate the AR.…”