CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 460Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsNoise Effects and ManagementHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Prevalence, Severity, Exposures, and Treatment Patterns of Tinnitus in the United States

Open access
Bhatt, Jay M., Lin, Harrison W., Bhattacharyya, Neil·2016·JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
DOI 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.1700PMC PMC5812683
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Tinnitus is a common problem for millions of individuals and can cause substantial negative effects on their quality of life. A large epidemiologic study of tinnitus and its management patterns in the US adult population is lacking. Objectives: To quantify the epidemiologic features and effect of tinnitus and to analyze the management of tinnitus in the United States relative to the 2014 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) clinical practice guidelines. Design, Methods, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of the representative 2007 National Health Interview Survey (raw data, 75 764 respondents) identified a weighted national sample of adults (age, ≥18 years) who reported tinnitus in the preceding 12 months. Data were collected in November 2014 at the University of California, Irvine, and Harvard Medical School. Main Outcomes and Measures: In addition to quantifying prevalence, severity, duration, and regularity of tinnitus, specific data regarding noise exposure and tinnitus management patterns during health care visits were analyzed. Results: Among an estimated (SE) 222.1 (3.4) million US adults, 21.4 (3.4) million (9.6% [0.3%]) experienced tinnitus in the past 12 months. Among those who reported tinnitus, 27% had symptoms for longer than 15 years, and 36% had nearly constant symptoms. Higher rates of tinnitus were reported in those with consistent exposure to loud noises at work (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.9-3.7) and during recreational time (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9). Years of work-related noise exposure correlated with increasing prevalence of tinnitus (r = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.10-0.16). In terms of subjective severity, 7.2% reported their tinnitus as a big or a very big problem compared with 41.6% who reported it as a small problem. Only 49.4% had discussed their tinnitus with a physician, and medications were the most frequently discussed recommendation (45.4%). Other interventions, such as hearing aids (9.2%), wearable (2.6%) and nonwearable (2.3%) masking devices, and cognitive behavioral therapy (0.2%), were less frequently discussed. Conclusions and Relevance: The prevalence of tinnitus in the United States is approximately 1 in 10 adults. Durations of occupational and leisure time noise exposures correlated with rates of tinnitus and are likely targetable risk factors. Management options suggested by the recently published AAO-HNSF guidelines were followed infrequently.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.1700

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cognitive behavioural therapy for tinnitus is seldom provided because of a lack of professionals with expertise in providing it.

    “Unfortunately, it is seldomly provided to those with tinnitus due to a lack of professionals with expertise in providing CBT for tinnitus (Bhatt, Lin, & Bhattacharyya, 2016).”

    From Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for tinnitus in Spanish: a global feasibility trial. (2022) · cites this paper as Bhatt, Lin, & Bhattacharyya, 2016

    The Results and Discussion report that CBT was the least commonly discussed treatment option and was rarely discussed with patients seeking advice for tinnitus. The paper does not establish how often CBT was provided or attribute its limited discussion to a lack of professionals with relevant expertise. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

13 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [3]Adams PF Hendershot GE Marano MA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1996 Vital Health Stat 10 1999 200 1 203 15782448
  2. [4]Kochkin S Tyler R Born J The Prevalence of Tinnitus in the United States and the Self-Reported Efficacy of Various Treatments Hearing Review 2011 18 12 10 26
  3. [8]Jalessi M Farhadi M Asghari A Tinnitus: an epidemiologic study in Iranian population Acta Med Iran 2013 51 12 886 891 24442544
  4. [9]Quaranta A Assennato G Sallustio V Epidemiology of hearing problems among adults in Italy Scand Audiol Suppl 1996 42 9 13 8668911
  5. [12]Sindhusake D Mitchell P Newall P 2003b Prevalence and characteristics of tinnitus in older adults: The Blue Mountains Hearing Study Int J Audiol 2003 42 289 294 12916702
  6. [38]Evaluation and Treatment of Tinnitus: Comparative Effectiveness Ear, Nose, Throat and Oral Conditions: Evidence-Based Reports 5 2015 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Rockville, MD http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/clinical/ent/index.html. Accessed Aug 21 2015 24049842
  7. [39]Cho SJ Song TJ Chu MK Outcome of Chronic Daily Headache or Chronic Migraine Curr Pain Headache Rep 2016 1 20 1 2 26695062

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhatt, J. M., Lin, H. W., & Bhattacharyya, N.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Lin, Harrison W.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2016-10-01
Volume
142
Issue
10
Pages
959
ISSN
2168-6181 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamaoto.2016.1700
PMC
PMC5812683
OpenAlex
W2484672148
Cited by
460
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 1
FWCI
19.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001414, KL2TR001416)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Noise Effects and Management
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
tinnitus, prevalence, tinnitus severity, noise exposure, occupational noise exposure, recreational noise exposure, tinnitus management, physician consultation, hearing aids, cognitive behavioral therapy, National Health Interview Survey, United States adults, health care utilization, health care costs
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Environmental Exposure, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Noise, Tinnitus, United States, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review