Cited by 95Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

The effect of waiting: a meta-analysis of wait-list control groups in trials for tinnitus distress

Hesser, Hugo, Weise, Cornelia, Rief, Winfried, Andersson, Gerhard·2011·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective The response rates and effects of being placed on a wait-list control condition are well documented in psychiatric populations. Despite the usefulness of such estimates and the frequent use of no-treatment controls in clinical trials for tinnitus, the effect of waiting in a tinnitus trial has not been investigated systematically. The aim of the present study was to quantify the overall effect of wait-list control groups on tinnitus distress.Methods Studies were retrieved via a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy for tinnitus distress. Outcomes of psychometrically robust tinnitus-specific measures (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Tinnitus Questionnaire, Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire) from wait-list control groups were quantified using meta-analytic techniques. Percentage of change and standard mean difference effect sizes were calculated using the pre and post wait period.Results Eleven studies involving 314 wait-list subjects with tinnitus were located. The analysis for a waiting period of 6 to 12 weeks revealed a mean decrease in scores on tinnitus-specific measures of 3% to 8%. Across studies, a statically significant small mean within-group effect size was obtained (Hedges' g=.17). The effects were moderated by methodological quality of the trial, sample characteristics (i.e., age, tinnitus duration), time of the wait-list and how diagnosis was established.Conclusion Subjects in a tinnitus trial improve in tinnitus distress over a short waiting phase. The effects of waiting are highly variable and depend on the characteristics of the sample and of the trial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.12.006

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hesser, H., Weise, C., Rief, W., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Hesser, Hugo
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
378-384
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147341530
Cited by
95
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 distress, waitlist control, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Tinnitus Questionnaire, methodological quality of trials, tinnitus duration, age effects
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Tinnitus, Waiting Lists, Placebo Effect, Control Groups

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