SLPNarrative ReviewTrends in hearing2017

Designing Clinical Trials for Assessing the Effectiveness of Interventions for Tinnitus.

Deborah A Hall

PMID 29076393

WHAT IT FOUND

Tinnitus trials use many different outcome measures, and many did not clearly state what was measured.

This review proposes standard outcome reporting so trials can be compared; it does not test a treatment.

Key findings

01Clinical trials in tinnitus have used 133 different outcome instruments and at least 29 patient questionnaires.

02In a review of reported outcome domains, investigators did not clearly report the outcome domain in 50% of cases.

03The authors recommend that trialists specify primary outcomes before the trial, describe what/how/when, and report harms.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they found

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

It is not a randomized trial. The consensus process was not finished. It does not evaluate any intervention.

Declared interests

The supplied text says the TINNET/COMiT work was supported by EU COST Action funding; it does not state author conflicts.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that any tinnitus treatment works. It reviews how trials should choose and report outcomes; it does not test an intervention or measure patient benefit.

Read it on PubMed →