Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus.

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is a symptom defined as the perception of sound in the absence of an external source. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults and children with acute or chronic subjective tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved Ginkgo biloba and this was compared to placebo, no intervention, or education and information. Concurrent use of other medication or other treatment was acceptable if used equally in each group. Where an additional intervention was used equally in both groups, we analysed this as a separate comparison. The review included all courses of Ginkgo biloba, regardless of dose regimens or formulations, and for any duration of treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity measured as a global score on a multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and serious adverse effects (bleeding, seizures). Our secondary outcomes were tinnitus loudness (change in subjective perception), tinnitus intrusiveness, generalised depression, generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 12 studies (with a total of  1915 participants). Eleven studies compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with placebo and one study compared the effects of Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids alone. All included studies were parallel-group RCTs. In general, risk of bias was high or unclear due to selection bias and poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessments. Due to heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and measurement methods used, only limited data pooling was possible.  Ginkgo biloba versus placebo When we pooled data from two studies for the primary outcome tinnitus symptom severity, we found that Ginkgo biloba may have little to no effect (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores) at three to six months compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.35 (scale 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.26 to 5.55; 2 studies; 85 participants) (very low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding or seizures, with no serious adverse effects reported in either group (4 studies; 1154 participants; low-certainty). For the secondary outcomes, one study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on tinnitus loudness measured with audiometric loudness matching at 12 weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -4.00 (scale -10 to 140 dB), 95% CI -13.33 to 5.33; 1 study; 73 participants) (very low-certainty). One study found that there may be little to no difference between the effects of Ginkgo biloba and placebo on health-related quality of life measured with the Glasgow Health Status Inventory at three months (MD -0.58 (scale 0 to 100), 95% CI -4.67 to 3.51; 1 study; 60 participants) (low-certainty). Ginkgo biloba may not increase the frequency of other adverse effects (gastrointestinal upset, headache, allergic reaction) at three months compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.60; 4 studies; 1175 participants) (low-certainty). None of the studies reported the other secondary outcomes of tinnitus intrusiveness or changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety. Gingko biloba with concurrent intervention versus concurrent intervention only One study compared Ginkgo biloba with hearing aids to hearing aids only. It assessed the mean difference in the change in Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores and tinnitus loudness using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at three months. The study did not report adverse effects, tinnitus intrusiveness, changes in depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life. This was a single, very small study (22 participants) and for all outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba for the treatment of tinnitus when compared to placebo. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of Ginkgo biloba when used with concurrent intervention (hearing aids). The certainty of the evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, ranged from low to very low. Future research into the effectiveness of Ginkgo biloba in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.

A comparison of the severity of tinnitus in patients with and without hearing loss using the tinnitus functional index (TFI).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the severity of tinnitus in tinnitus patients with and without hearing loss. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: 73 tinnitus patients were included in this study at an audiology clinic in Amman, Jordan. Participants were assigned to two groups according to their hearing status. The severity of tinnitus was evaluated using the Tinnitus Functional Index questionnaire. All participants were interviewed, followed by an otoscopic examination, pure tone audiometry, and tests for admittance and tinnitus matching. RESULTS: The normal hearing group included 34 participants (46.6%) whose TFI scores were divided as follows: mild annoyance (17), significant annoyance (14), and severe annoyance (3). The sensorineural loss group included 39 participants (53.4%) with mild annoyance (11), significant annoyance (12), and severe annoyance (16). A statistically significant association was found between hearing status and the severity of tinnitus using a Chi-Squared test (x2 = 0.487, p = 0.007). There was no association between tinnitus severity and age or gender. CONCLUSION: Tinnitus severity was significantly worse in tinnitus patients with a hearing loss than tinnitus patients with normal hearing thresholds. This should be taken into consideration when clinicians are planning counselling and management protocols for individual patients.

Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus.

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus affects 10% to 15% of the adult population, with about 20% of these experiencing symptoms that negatively affect quality of life. In England alone there are an estimated ¾ million general practice consultations every year where the primary complaint is tinnitus, equating to a major burden on healthcare services. Clinical management strategies include education and advice, relaxation therapy, tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), sound enrichment using ear-level sound generators or hearing aids, and drug therapies to manage co-morbid symptoms such as insomnia, anxiety or depression. Hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices (amplification and sound generation within one device) are a component of many tinnitus management programmes and together with information and advice are a first line of management in audiology departments for someone who has tinnitus. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus in adults. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, via the Cochrane Register of Studies); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 July 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with acute or chronic subjective idiopathic tinnitus. We included studies where the intervention involved hearing aids, sound generators or combination hearing aids and compared them to waiting list control, placebo or education/information only with no device. We also included studies comparing hearing aids to sound generators, combination hearing aids to hearing aids, and combination hearing aids to sound generators. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were tinnitus symptom severity as measured as a global score on multi-item tinnitus questionnaire and significant adverse effects as indicated by an increase in self-reported tinnitus loudness. Our secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, symptoms of generalised anxiety, health-related quality of life and adverse effects associated with wearing the device such as pain, discomfort, tenderness or skin irritation, or ear infections. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: This review included eight studies (with a total of 590 participants). Seven studies investigated the effects of hearing aids, four combination hearing aids and three sound generators. Seven studies were parallel-group RCTs and one had a cross-over design. In general, risk of bias was unclear due to lack of detail about sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was also little or no use of blinding.No data for our outcomes were available for any of our three main comparisons (comparing hearing aids, sound generators and combination devices with a waiting list control group, placebo or education/information only). Data for our additional comparisons (comparing these devices with each other) were also few, with limited potential for data pooling.Hearing aid only versus sound generator device onlyOne study compared patients fitted with sound generators versus those fitted with hearing aids and found no difference between them in their effects on our primary outcome, tinnitus symptom severity measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) at 3, 6 or 12 months (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Combination hearing aid versus hearing aid onlyThree studies compared combination hearing aids with hearing aids and measured tinnitus symptom severity using the THI or Tinnitus Functional Index. When we pooled the data we found no difference between them (standardised mean difference -0.15, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to 0.22; three studies; 114 participants) (low-quality evidence). The use of both types of device was again associated with a clinically significant reduction in tinnitus symptom severity.Adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies.None of the studies measured the secondary outcomes of depressive symptoms or depression, anxiety symptoms or generalised anxiety, or health-related quality of life as measured by a validated instrument, nor the newly developed core outcomes tinnitus intrusiveness, ability to ignore, concentration, quality of sleep and sense of control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the superiority of sound therapy for tinnitus over waiting list control, placebo or education/information with no device. There is insufficient evidence to support the superiority or inferiority of any of the sound therapy options (hearing aid, sound generator or combination hearing aid) over each other. The quality of evidence for the reported outcomes, assessed using GRADE, was low. Using a combination device, hearing aid or sound generator might result in little or no difference in tinnitus symptom severity.Future research into the effectiveness of sound therapy in patients with tinnitus should use rigorous methodology. Randomisation and blinding should be of the highest quality, given the subjective nature of tinnitus and the strong likelihood of a placebo response. The CONSORT statement should be used in the design and reporting of future studies. We also recommend the use of validated, patient-centred outcome measures for research in the field of tinnitus.

A systematic review of techniques and effects of self-help interventions for tinnitus: Application of taxonomies from health psychology.

OBJECTIVE: Self-help interventions are followed by people independently with minimal or no therapist contact. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of self-help interventions for adults with chronic tinnitus and systematically identify the self-help techniques used. DESIGN: Systematic review and application of health psychology taxonomies. Electronic database searches were conducted, supplemented by citation searching and hand-searching of key journals. Prospective controlled trials, which used measures of tinnitus distress, functional management, anxiety, depression, and quality of life, were included. Michie et al's behaviour change techniques (BCTs) taxonomy and Taylor et al's PRISMS taxonomy of self-management components were applied to describe interventions. STUDY SAMPLE: Five studies were included, providing low-to-moderate levels of evidence. RESULTS: Randomized controlled trial studies were too few and heterogeneous for meta-analysis to be performed. Studies comparing self-help interventions to therapist-guided interventions and assessing non tinnitus-specific psychosocial outcomes and functional management were lacking. Fifteen BCTs and eight self-management components were identified across interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of high-quality and homogeneous studies meant that confident conclusions could not be drawn regarding the efficacy of self-help interventions for tinnitus. Better reporting and categorization of intervention techniques is needed for replication in research and practice and to facilitate understanding of intervention mechanisms.

The Current State of Evidence Regarding Audiologist-Provided Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for the Management of Tinnitus: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for tinnitus management is effective and widely recommended by national and international practice guidelines. However, all the evidence for CBT so far has come from Psychologist-led programs, and the potential role of Audiologists in providing CBT for tinnitus remains an important consideration. OBJECTIVES: This study sets out to systematically map the body of literature relating to Audiologist-provided CBT for tinnitus, in order to summarise the current state of evidence and determine directions for future research. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Sources were eligible for inclusion if they addressed the concept of Audiologist-provided CBT. No restrictions were imposed on the date of publication. Only sources published in English were included. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: A wide range of primary and secondary literature sources were sought. CHARTING METHODS: Data from included sources were charted systematically using a pre-designed data charting form. RESULTS: Of the 267 identified sources, 30 were included in this review. This included both primary and secondary literature sources. Primary sources were compared and showed variation across Audiologist-provided CBT programs both in terms of procedural details and from a research standpoint. CONCLUSIONS: A growing body of evidence has addressed the concept of Audiologist-provided CBT. Directions for future research include further primary research with an increased focus on face-to-face Audiologist-provided CBT, and a comparison of the outcomes of Audiologist-provided vs. Psychologist-provided CBT.

Specialised treatment based on cognitive behaviour therapy versus usual care for tinnitus: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 21% of adults will develop tinnitus, which is one of the most distressing and debilitating audiological problems. The absence of medical cures and standardised practice can lead to costly and prolonged treatment. We aimed to assess effectiveness of a stepped-care approach, based on cognitive behaviour therapy, compared with usual care in patients with varying tinnitus severity. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, undertaken at the Adelante Department of Audiology and Communication (Hoensbroek, Netherlands), we enrolled previously untreated Dutch speakers (aged >18 years) who had a primary complaint of tinnitus but no health issues precluding participation. An independent research assistant randomly allocated patients by use of a computer-generated allocation sequence in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by tinnitus severity and hearing ability, in block sizes of four to receive specialised care of cognitive behaviour therapy with sound-focused tinnitus retraining therapy or usual care. Patients and assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Primary outcomes were health-related quality of life (assessed by the health utilities index score), tinnitus severity (tinnitus questionnaire score), and tinnitus impairment (tinnitus handicap inventory score), which were assessed before treatment and at 3 months, 8 months, and 12 months after randomisation. We used multilevel mixed regression analyses to assess outcomes in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00733044. FINDINGS: Between September, 2007 and January, 2011, we enrolled and treated 492 (66%) of 741 screened patients. Compared with 247 patients assigned to usual care, 245 patients assigned to specialised care improved in health-related quality of life during a period of 12 months (between-group difference 0·059, 95% CI 0·025 to 0·094; effect size of Cohen's d=0·24; p=0·0009), and had decreased tinnitus severity (-8·062, -10·829 to -5·295; d=0·43; p<0·0001) and tinnitus impairment (-7·506, -10·661 to -4·352; d=0·45; p<0·0001). Treatment seemed effective irrespective of initial tinnitus severity, and we noted no adverse events in this trial. INTERPRETATION: Specialised treatment of tinnitus based on cognitive behaviour therapy could be suitable for widespread implementation for patients with tinnitus of varying severity. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW).

Sound therapy (masking) in the management of tinnitus in adults.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 12, 2010.Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. Numerous management strategies have been tried for this potentially debilitating, heterogeneous symptom. External noise has been used as a management tool for tinnitus, in different capacities and with different philosophical intent, for over a century. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of sound-creating devices (including hearing aids) in the management of tinnitus in adults. Primary outcome measures were changes in the loudness or severity of tinnitus and/or impact on quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were change in pure-tone auditory thresholds and adverse effects of treatment.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 8 February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with persistent, distressing, subjective tinnitus of any aetiology in which the management strategy included maskers, noise-generating device and/or hearing aids, used either as the sole management tool or in combination with other strategies, including counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently examined the 387 search results to identify studies for inclusion in the review, of which 33 were potentially relevant. The update searches in 2012 retrieved no further potentially relevant studies. Both authors extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (553 participants) are included in this review. Studies were varied in design, with significant heterogeneity in the evaluation of subjective tinnitus perception, with different scores, scales, tests and questionnaires as well as variance in the outcome measures used to assess the improvement in tinnitus sensation/quality of life. This precluded meta-analysis of the data. There was no long-term follow-up. We assessed the risk of bias as medium in three and high in three studies. Following analysis of the data, no significant change was seen in the loudness of tinnitus or the overall severity of tinnitus following the use of sound therapy compared to other interventions such as patient education, 'relaxation techniques', 'tinnitus coping strategies', counselling, 'tinnitus retraining' and exposure to environmental sounds. No side effects or significant morbidity were reported from the use of sound-creating devices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited data from the included studies failed to show strong evidence of the efficacy of sound therapy in tinnitus management. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. The lack of quality research in this area, in addition to the common use of combined approaches (hearing therapy plus counselling) in the management of tinnitus are, in part, responsible for the lack of conclusive evidence. Other combined forms of management, such as tinnitus retraining therapy, have been subject to a Cochrane Review. Optimal management may involve multiple strategies.

The audiovestibular manifestations as early symptoms of multiple sclerosis: a scoping review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated, demyelinating disease of the nervous system, which may impact the audiovestibular pathway at different stages of the disease. The auditory and vestibular manifestations of MS as a presenting or early symptom are an area in which more investigation is needed. AIMS: The aim of this review is to determine the auditory and vestibular symptoms, which may occur at the presenting stage of multiple sclerosis. This clinical knowledge will allow a clinician to facilitate early diagnosis and intervention of MS through appropriate onward referral. Audiological and vestibular test results, as well as magnetic resonance imagery results, will also be examined to try to determine the impact of MS on the auditory and vestibular pathways. METHODS: A scoping search of the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and EBSCO was conducted in March 2020 to obtain studies specifically of patients with audiovestibular symptoms at the early or presenting stages of multiple sclerosis. Data was extracted from studies which met the inclusion criteria and studies were subsequently critically appraised and assessed for risk of bias. RESULTS: Eighteen papers met the inclusion criteria for this study. Results of the study found that the most common audiovestibular manifestation as a presenting symptom of MS was unilateral, moderate-profound, fluctuating, and sudden sensorineural hearing loss across all frequencies (250 Hz-8000 Hz). Other symptoms include tinnitus, balance abnormalities, aural pain and aural fullness, which may accompany SSHL or occur independently. The peripheral involvement of the immune-mediated mechanisms of MS was suggested by peripheral findings in vestibular examination results and the involvement of wave I ABR in patients with irreversible hearing loss. Demyelinating lesions associated with MS were suggested by results obtained from evoked potentials measurements, including ABR, VEMPs, and MLR. CONCLUSION: An understanding of the sensitivity of evoked potentials in the detection of demyelinating lesions as well as the most common audiovestibular presentations of the disease allows the practitioner to provide an appropriate onward referral for MRI which may lead to early diagnosis and intervention of MS. We suggest that there is enough evidence to include evoked potentials complementary to MRI in the detection and monitoring of MS. As the review suggests evidence of involvement of the immune-mediated mechanisms of MS on peripheral structures like the inner ear, further clinical research is recommended to explore this mechanism. Key points 1. The most common audiovestibular manifestation as an early symptom of MS was unilateral moderate to profound SSHL across all frequencies (250 Hz-8000 Hz). 2. Findings of the review indicated the involvement of the immune-mediated mechanisms of MS in the peripheral structures of the inner ear. 3. These findings included peripheral results in the vestibular test of the patients involved in the study and secondly, the three studies which reported an absence of full recovery of hearing loss were also three papers which within their ABR results showed abnormality of wave I 4. This is the first paper to support the theory (Di Stadio et al. 2018) [32] that immune-mediated processes of MS can spread to peripheral inner ear structures 5. The review highlighted the sensitivity of evoked potentials in detecting MS lesions in the presenting stage, particularly ABR which demonstrated that in instances in which hearing loss recovered ABR results remained abnormal.

Sound therapy (masking) in the management of tinnitus in adults.

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. Numerous management strategies have been tried for this potentially debilitating, heterogeneous symptom. External noise has been used as a management tool for tinnitus, in different capacities and with different philosophical intent, for over a century. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of sound-creating devices (including hearing aids) in the management of tinnitus in adults. Primary outcome measures were changes in the loudness or severity of tinnitus and/or impact on quality of life. Secondary outcome measures were change in pure-tone auditory thresholds and adverse effects of treatment.  SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL (2009, Issue 3); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 11 September 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with persistent, distressing, subjective tinnitus of any aetiology in which the management strategy included maskers, noise-generating device and/or hearing aids, used either as the sole management tool or in combination with other strategies, including counselling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently examined the 362 search results to identify studies for inclusion in the review, of which 33 were potentially relevant. Both authors extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (553 participants) are included in this review. Studies were varied in design, with significant heterogeneity in the evaluation of subjective tinnitus perception, with different scores, scales, tests and questionnaires as well as variance in the outcome measures used to assess the improvement in tinnitus sensation/quality of life. This precluded meta-analysis of the data. There was no long-term follow up. We assessed the risk of bias as medium in three and high in three studies. No side effects or significant morbidity were reported from the use of sound-creating devices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The limited data from the included studies failed to show strong evidence of the efficacy of sound therapy in tinnitus management. The absence of conclusive evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of effectiveness. The lack of quality research in this area, in addition to the common use of combined approaches (hearing therapy plus counselling) in the management of tinnitus are, in part, responsible for the lack of conclusive evidence. Other combined forms of management, such as Tinnitus Retraining Therapy, have been subject to a Cochrane Review. Optimal management may involve multiple strategies.

Tinnitus management in Ireland: a pilot study of general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is a phenomenon that affects approximately 15% of the adult population. A minority of patients will experience chronic bothersome tinnitus that has a detrimental effect on their quality of life. Management of such tinnitus is challenging for healthcare practitioners. Primary care services are the first point at which patients seek expert medical advice about their condition and General Practitioners (GPs) must be equipped with the knowledge to appropriately triage and guide patients. AIMS: To date, there has been little research surrounding tinnitus management in Ireland. The aim of this study is to determine how GPs assess and manage tinnitus patients in Ireland. METHODS: This is a quantitative study in the form of an online survey. The 15-item questionnaire was made available through SurveyMonkey and was distributed by email to GPs in Cork, Kerry and South Dublin. RESULTS: The survey obtained 43 responses. Sixty-three percent of GPs do not follow any routine criteria for onward referral. Forty percent feel that tinnitus has sufficient impact on their practice to warrant further training. GPs expressed a need for clearer guidance on tinnitus management and better access to resources such as ENT (ear nose throat), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and audiology. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates there is wide variation in how tinnitus is evaluated and managed by GPs, which represents a gap in clinical care. We recommend further research, implementation of a service model for tinnitus, national clinical guidelines, training pathways for primary care staff and establishment of regional direct-access tinnitus clinics throughout Ireland.

Sound therapy for tinnitus management: practicable options.

BACKGROUND: The authors reviewed practicable options of sound therapy for tinnitus, the evidence base for each option, and the implications of each option for the patient and for clinical practice. PURPOSE: To provide a general guide to selecting sound therapy options in clinical practice. INTERVENTION: Practicable sound therapy options. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Where available, peer-reviewed empirical studies, conference proceedings, and review studies were examined. Material relevant to the purpose was summarized in a narrative. RESULTS: The number of peer-reviewed publications pertaining to each sound therapy option reviewed varied significantly (from none to over 10). Overall there is currently insufficient evidence to support or refute the routine use of individual sound therapy options. It is likely, however, that sound therapy combined with education and counseling is generally helpful to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to be guided by the patient's point of care, patient motivation and expectations of sound therapy, and the acceptability of the intervention both in terms of the sound stimuli they are to use and whether they are willing to use sound extensively or intermittently. Clinicians should also clarify to patients the role sound therapy is expected to play in the management plan.

Cost-effectiveness of specialized treatment based on cognitive behavioral therapy versus usual care for tinnitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of specialized multidisciplinary tinnitus treatment based on cognitive behavioral therapy, compared with care as usual. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial including an economic evaluation from a health-care and societal perspective, using a one-year time horizon. SETTING: Audiologic center. PATIENTS: A referred sample of 626 patients with tinnitus were eligible for participation. Approximately 492 patients were included in the study. Eighty-six (35%) of 247 patients in the usual care group, and 74 (30%) of 245 patients in the specialized care group were lost to follow-up by month 12. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as measured with the Health Utilities Index Mark III and cost in US dollars. RESULTS: Compared with patients receiving usual care, patients who received specialized care gained on average 0.015 QALYs (95% bootstrapped confidence interval [BCI], -0.03 to 0.06). The incremental costs from a societal perspective are $357 (95% BCI,-$1,034 to $1,785). The incremental cost per QALY from a societal perspective amounted to $24,580. The probability that SC is cost-effective from a societal perspective is 58% for a willingness to pay for a QALY of $45,000. CONCLUSION: Specialized multidisciplinary tinnitus treatment based on cognitive behavioral therapy is cost-effective as compared with usual care. Although uncertainty surrounding the incremental costs and effects is considerable, sensitivity analysis indicated that cost-effectiveness results were robust.

Gabapentin for tinnitus: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The main aim of this study was to assess the effect of gabapentin on tinnitus via a systematic review. METHOD: An electronic search of literature as well as a hand search were conducted. Only double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met all of the inclusion criteria were included in this review. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for risk of bias assessment was used to investigate the validity of the included studies. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to inadequate details in reporting the data in the included studies. Hence, qualitative synthesis and interpretation of the data were carried out. RESULTS: Two studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Fourteen studies were excluded. There were substantive within-study clinical heterogeneities with regard to the baseline tinnitus handicap scores, duration of tinnitus, and severity of hearing loss in the included double-blind RCTs. CONCLUSION: The authors of both studies reported that gabapentin was not superior to placebo in their primary outcomes. However, following the assessment of risk of bias and within-study clinical heterogeneities, this review concludes that there is insufficient evidence regarding the effect of gabapentin on tinnitus.

A questionnaire study of the quality of life and quality of family life of individuals complaining of tinnitus pre- and post-attendance at a tinnitus clinic.

Tinnitus is a condition that is difficult to treat, and treatment outcomes are difficult to measure The majority of people who experience tinnitus are not troubled by it; however, the troubled minority are referred by an otorhinolaryngologist for specialist clinic help. The aim of this study was to investigate how the impact of tinnitus changes following attendance at a tinnitus clinic and to find out how acceptable the questionnaires used were for measuring recovery. Fifty-seven tinnitus sufferers completed three questionnaires covering the characteristics of tinnitus, and its effect on daily life, quality of life, and quality of family life, before and after treatment at the Nottingham Tinnitus Clinic. Questionnaires were answered at patients' homes while they were on the waiting list to attend the clinic, and again I year after their first attendance. Measures of functional and social handicap were significantly reduced following attendance at the clinic (mean change in functional handicap = 13%, p<0.01, and mean change in social handicap = 8%, p<0.01). Quality of life was significantly better after treatment at the clinic (mean visual analog scale difference = 6.5%, p = 0.01). We conclude that attendance at the Nottingham Tinnitus Clinic had a positive effect on the impact of tinnitus on patients and their families, and that the questionnaires gave an accurate measure of patient distress.