Cited by 79Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Linking the Tinnitus Questionnaire and the subjective Clinical Global Impression: Which differences are clinically important?

Open access
Adamchic, Ilya, Tass, Peter, Langguth, Berthold, Hauptmann, Christian, Koller, Michael, Schecklmann, Martin, Zeman, Florian, Landgrebe, Michael·2012·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Development of new tinnitus treatments requires prospective placebo-controlled randomized trials to prove their efficacy. The Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ) is a validated and commonly used instrument for assessment of tinnitus severity and has been used in many clinical studies. Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for TQ changes is an important step to a better interpretation of the clinical relevance of changes observed in clinical trials. In this study we aimed to estimate the minimum change of the TQ score that could be considered clinically relevant. METHODS: 757 patients with chronic tinnitus were pooled from the TRI database and the RESET study. An anchor-based approach using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and distributional approaches were used to estimate MCID. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated to define optimal TQ change cutoffs discriminating between minimally changed and unchanged subjects. RESULTS: The relationship between TQ change scores and CGI ratings of change was good (r = 0.52, p < 0.05). Mean change scores associated with minimally better and minimally worse CGI categories were -6.65 and +2.72 respectively. According to the ROC method MCID for improvement was -5 points and for deterioration +1 points. CONCLUSION: Distribution and anchor-based methods yielded comparable results in identifying MCIDs. ΔTQ scores of -5 and +1 points were identified as the minimal clinically relevant change for improvement and worsening respectively. The asymmetry of the MCIDs for improvement and worsening may be related to expectation effects.

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 · 10.1186/1477-7525-10-79

Cites

58 of 59 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?

  • Within the intervention group, the observed improvement in TQ score exceeded the minimal clinically important difference of -6.65.

    “Within the intervention group the observed improvement of TQ Score by use of the Tinnitus app exceeded the MCID of -6.65 reported by a study linking TQ Scores and clinical global expression [17].”

    From Randomized controlled trial of a smartphone-based cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic tinnitus (2023) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results report −6.65 as the mean TQ change among patients who rated themselves minimally better. But the Discussion and Conclusions identify approximately −5 points, not −6.65, as the recommended MCID for improvement. The app group's observed improvement is the citing study's own finding, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adamchic, I., Tass, P., Langguth, B., Hauptmann, C., Koller, M., Schecklmann, M., Zeman, F., & Landgrebe, M.
Affiliations
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
  • Sozialstiftung Bamberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Adamchic, Ilya
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published
2012
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
79
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135498452
Cited by
79
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
tinnitus, Tinnitus Questionnaire, minimal clinically important difference, chronic tinnitus, Clinical Global Impression Scale, anchor-based estimation, distributional methods, expectancy effects
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Tinnitus

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