Tinnitus outcomes assessment.

Trends in Amplification Pub Date : 2008-09-01 Epub Date: 2008-07-03 DOI:10.1177/1084713808319943

Mary B Meikle, Barbara J Stewart, Susan E Griest, James A Henry

{"title":"Tinnitus outcomes assessment.","authors":"Mary B Meikle, Barbara J Stewart, Susan E Griest, James A Henry","doi":"10.1177/1084713808319943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over the past two decades, recognition has grown that measures for evaluating treatment outcomes must be designed specifically to have high responsiveness. With that in mind, four major types of tinnitus measures are reviewed, including psychoacoustic measures, self-report questionnaires concerning functional effects of tinnitus, various rating scales, and global outcome measures. Nine commonly used tinnitus questionnaires, developed in the period 1980-2000, are reviewed. Because of many similarities between tinnitus and pain, comparisons between pain and tinnitus measures are discussed, and recommendations that have been made for developing a core set of measures to evaluate treatment-related changes in pain are presented as providing a fruitful path for developing a core set of measures for tinnitus. Finally, the importance of having both immediately obtainable outcome measures (psychoacoustic, rating scales, or single global measures) and longer term measures (questionnaires covering the negative effects of tinnitus) is emphasized for further work in tinnitus outcomes assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":48972,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Amplification","volume":"12 3","pages":"223-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1084713808319943","citationCount":"94","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Amplification","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1084713808319943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2008/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 94

Abstract

Over the past two decades, recognition has grown that measures for evaluating treatment outcomes must be designed specifically to have high responsiveness. With that in mind, four major types of tinnitus measures are reviewed, including psychoacoustic measures, self-report questionnaires concerning functional effects of tinnitus, various rating scales, and global outcome measures. Nine commonly used tinnitus questionnaires, developed in the period 1980-2000, are reviewed. Because of many similarities between tinnitus and pain, comparisons between pain and tinnitus measures are discussed, and recommendations that have been made for developing a core set of measures to evaluate treatment-related changes in pain are presented as providing a fruitful path for developing a core set of measures for tinnitus. Finally, the importance of having both immediately obtainable outcome measures (psychoacoustic, rating scales, or single global measures) and longer term measures (questionnaires covering the negative effects of tinnitus) is emphasized for further work in tinnitus outcomes assessment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

耳鸣结果评估。

在过去的二十年中，人们越来越认识到，评估治疗结果的措施必须专门设计以具有高响应性。鉴于此，本文综述了四种主要的耳鸣测量方法，包括心理声学测量、关于耳鸣功能影响的自我报告问卷、各种评定量表和总体结果测量。回顾了1980年至2000年期间开发的九种常用耳鸣问卷。由于耳鸣和疼痛之间有许多相似之处，因此讨论了疼痛和耳鸣措施之间的比较，并提出了开发一套核心措施来评估治疗相关疼痛变化的建议，为开发一套耳鸣核心措施提供了富有成效的途径。最后，对于耳鸣结果评估的进一步工作，强调了立即获得的结果测量(心理声学，评分量表或单一整体测量)和长期测量(涵盖耳鸣负面影响的问卷)的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Trends in Amplification AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks