CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment and amelioration of hyperacusis in tinnitus patients

Dauman, René, Bouscau-Faure, Frédéric·2005·Acta Oto-Laryngologica
DOI 10.1080/00016480510027565
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONCLUSIONS: Tinnitus can be bothersome even without hyperacusis. The good correlation found in this study between the multiple-activity scale for hyperacusis (MASH) score and the overall annoyance of hyperacusis score supports the reliability of self-rating of hyperacusis. Objectives. A prospective study was undertaken to investigate the relationships between hyperacusis and tinnitus and to determine whether hyperacusis can be rapidly controlled over time. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All tinnitus patients seen over a period of 16 months with surnames beginning with the letters A L (n = 249) were assessed during a structured interview using (i) a scale ranging from 0 to 10 for assessing the annoyance of tinnitus and the overall annoyance of hyperacusis and (ii) the newly introduced MASH. RESULTS: The annoyance of tinnitus was greater in females. The prevalence of hyperacusis was high (79%). The annoyance of hyperacusis varied. Patients were categorized into five groups according to the hyperacusis annoyance score, as follows: no hyperacusis; mild hyperacusis (< or = 3); moderate hyperacusis (3.1-5.0); substantial hyperacusis (5.1-7.0); and severe hyperacusis (> or = 7.1). Individuals with severe hyperacusis were younger than those in the other groups. The correlation between the annoyance of tinnitus and the annoyance of hyperacusis was poor (r = 0.35). No audiometric difference was found between categories, whereas self-rated hearing deficiency increased with the annoyance of hyperacusis. A good correlation (r = 0.89) was found between the overall annoyance of hyperacusis and the MASH score. Changes over time, assessed in 32 patients investigated at least 3 times, showed more frequent improvement in hyperacusis (63%) than tinnitus (47%).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00016480510027565

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sood SK, 1988, Br J Audiol, 22, 228

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 179

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dauman, R., & Bouscau-Faure, F.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (FR)
Corresponding author
Dauman, René
Venue
Acta Oto-Laryngologica
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-05
Volume
125
Issue
5
Pages
503-509
ISSN
  • 0001-6489 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2251
DOI
10.1080/00016480510027565
OpenAlex
W2157301875
Cited by
179
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Oto-Laryngologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Acoustics and Ultrasonics › Noise Effects and Management
Keywords
hyperacusis, tinnitus, tinnitus annoyance, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Hearing Aids, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Hyperacusis, Severity of Illness Index, Tinnitus, Prevalence, Treatment Outcome

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