CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

Amplification with hearing aids for patients with tinnitus and co-existing hearing loss.

Open access
Hoare, Derek J, Edmondson-Jones, Mark, Sereda, Magdalena, Akeroyd, Michael A, Hall, Deborah·2014·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010151.pub2PMC PMC10559339
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management typically focuses on reducing the effects of co-morbid symptoms such as distress or hearing loss. Hearing loss is commonly co-morbid with tinnitus and so logic implies that amplification of external sounds by hearing aids will reduce perception of the tinnitus sound and the distress associated with it. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hearing aids specifically in terms of tinnitus benefit in patients with tinnitus and co-existing hearing loss. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 19 August 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with subjective tinnitus and some degree of hearing loss, where the intervention involves amplification with hearing aids and this is compared to interventions involving other medical devices, other forms of standard or complementary therapy, or combinations of therapies, no intervention or placebo interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently screened all selected abstracts. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed those potentially suitable studies for risk of bias. For studies meeting the inclusion criteria, we used the mean difference (MD) to compare hearing aids with other interventions and controls. MAIN RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial (91 participants) was included in this review. We judged the trial to have a low risk of bias for method of randomisation and outcome reporting, and an unclear risk of bias for other criteria. No non-randomised controlled trials meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The included study measured change in tinnitus severity (primary measure of interest) using a tinnitus questionnaire measure, and change in tinnitus loudness (secondary measure of interest) on a visual analogue scale. Other secondary outcome measures of interest, namely change in the psychoacoustic characteristics of tinnitus, change in self reported anxiety, depression and quality of life, and change in neurophysiological measures, were not investigated in this study. The included study compared hearing aid use to sound generator use. The estimated effect on change in tinnitus loudness or severity as measured by the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory score was compatible with benefits for both hearing aids or sound generators but no difference was found between the two alternative treatments (MD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.92 to 6.12) (100-point scale); moderate quality evidence. No negative or adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base for hearing aid prescription for tinnitus is limited. To be useful, future studies should make appropriate use of blinding and be consistent in their use of outcome measures. Whilst hearing aids are sometimes prescribed as part of tinnitus management, there is currently no evidence to support or refute their use as a more routine intervention for tinnitus.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd010151.pub2

Cites

112 of 112 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?

  • There is a lack of reliable and consistent evidence on the efficacy of individual and combination tinnitus treatments.

    “There is a lack of reliable and consistent evidence on the efficacy of the individual and combination treatments, such as audiological care and psychological treatment.”

    From Combining the unequal variance signal detection model with the health belief model to optimize shared decision making in tinnitus patients: part 2—patient profiling (2025) · cites this paper as Hoare et al., 2014

    The Authors’ conclusions (page not provided) say the evidence for hearing aids in tinnitus management is limited. The Description of the intervention (page not provided) reports mixed evidence for combining hearing aids with counselling. The review does not establish a lack of reliable evidence for individual psychological treatments or for tinnitus treatments generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The lack of reliable and consistent evidence on tinnitus treatment efficacy is due to different study designs and lack of reproducible results.

    “This is due to different study designs and lack of reproducible results (Fuller et al., 2020; Hoare et al., 2014; Sereda et al., 2018).”

    From Combining the unequal variance signal detection model with the health belief model to optimize shared decision making in tinnitus patients: part 2—patient profiling (2025) · cites this paper as Hoare et al., 2014

    The Authors’ conclusions say evidence for hearing aids as a tinnitus intervention is limited, and the Quality of the evidence section identifies design and outcome-measure limitations. But the review included only one RCT; it does not attribute the evidence gap to differences between study designs or to a lack of reproducible results. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. colliculus after partial unilateral hearing loss. Brain Research 2010;1342:24-32.
  2. Eggermont J, Roberts L, Caspary D, Shore S, Melcher J, Kaltenbach J. Ringing ears: the neuroscience of tinnitus. Journal of Neuroscience 2010;30:14972-9.
  3. Goebel G, Hiller W. The tinnitus questionnaire. A standard instrument for measuring the severity of tinnitus. Results of a multicentre study with the tinnitus questionnaire. HNO 1994;42:166-72.
  4. Hoare DJ, Kowalkowski V, Kang S, Hall DA. Systematic review and meta-analyses of RCTs examining tinnitus management. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1555-64.
  5. Marciano E, Varrabba L, Giannini P, Sementina C, Verde P, Bruno C, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity in a population of outpatients affected by tinnitus. International Journal of Audiology 2003;42:4-9.
  6. Meikle MB, Griest SE, Stewart BJ, Press LS. Measuring the negative impact of tinnitus: a brief severity index. Abstracts of the Association of Research in Otolaryngology 1995:167.
  7. Meikle MB, Stewart BJ, Greist SE, Henry JA. Tinnitus outcome assessment. Trends in Amplification 2008;12(3): 223-35.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hoare, D. J., Edmondson-Jones, M., Sereda, M., Akeroyd, M. A., & Hall, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Nottingham; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit; Ropewalk House, 113 The Ropewalk Nottingham UK NG1 5DU
  • Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-31
Volume
2014
Issue
1
Pages
CD010151-CD010151
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd010151.pub2
PMC
PMC10559339
OpenAlex
W2108188136
Cited by
170
References
112
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Noise Effects and Management
Keywords
tinnitus, hearing aids, hearing loss, tinnitus loudness, tinnitus severity, sound generator, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, tinnitus distress, quality of life, anxiety and depression, neurophysiological measures, risk of bias, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Hearing Aids, Humans, Loudness Perception, Perceptual Masking, Tinnitus, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Hearing Loss

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