Cited by 255Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials examining tinnitus management.

Open access
Hoare, Derek J., Kowalkowski, Victoria L., Kang, Sujin, Hall, Deborah A.·2011·The Laryngoscope

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the existing level of evidence for tinnitus management strategies identified in the UK Department of Health's Good Practice Guideline. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature and meta-analyses. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Web of Science, and EMBASE (earliest to August 2010), supplemented by hand searches in October 2010. Only randomized controlled trials that used validated questionnaire measures of symptoms (i.e., measures of tinnitus distress, anxiety, depression) were included. RESULTS: Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria, most of which provide moderate levels of evidence for the effects they reported. Levels of evidence were generally limited by the lack of blinding, lack of power calculations, and incomplete data reporting in these studies. Only studies examining cognitive behavioral therapy were numerous and similar enough to perform meta-analysis, from which the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (moderate effect size) appears to be reasonably established. Antidepressants were the only drug class to show any evidence of potential benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of most interventions for tinnitus benefit remains to be demonstrated conclusively. In particular, high-level assessment of the benefit derived from those interventions most commonly used in practice, namely hearing aids, maskers, and tinnitus retraining therapy needs to be performed.

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/lary.21825

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • Clinical psychologist-delivered CBT is superior to other treatments and waiting list control conditions for improving tinnitus-related distress, depression, and quality of life.

    “Research evidence consistently demonstrates a superiority of clinical psychologist-delivered CBT over other treatments and waiting list control conditions for improving tinnitus-related distress, depression, and quality of life (Martinez-Devesa et al. 2010; Hesser et al. 2011; Hoare et al. 2011).”

    From Psychological Therapy for People with Tinnitus: A Scoping Review of Treatment Components. (2017) · cites this paper as Hoare et al. 2011

    The Results (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; page unavailable) report that psychologist-delivered CBT improved tinnitus distress measures compared with education, relaxation, and waiting-list controls. But the review finds little evidence of benefit for depression and does not establish the claimed improvement in quality of life. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [28]Speilberger CD Gorsuch RL Lushene RE STAI Manual 1970 Palo Alto, California Consulting Psychologists Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoare, D. J., Kowalkowski, V. L., Kang, S., & Hall, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hoare, Derek J.
Venue
The Laryngoscope
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-10
Volume
121
Issue
7
Pages
1555-1564
ISSN
  • 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4995
OpenAlex
W2088018963
Cited by
255
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Laryngoscope (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
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 management, cognitive behavioral therapy, antidepressants, tinnitus retraining therapy, hearing aids, tinnitus maskers, tinnitus distress, anxiety, depression, treatment efficacy, level of evidence
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Combined Modality Therapy, Counseling, Female, Hearing Aids, Humans, Male, Quality of Life, Relaxation Therapy, Severity of Illness Index, Tinnitus, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, Risk Assessment

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