Dataset Information

Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders: a protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Internet-based interventions are emerging as an alternative way of delivering accessible healthcare for various conditions including hearing and balance disorders. A comprehensive review regarding the evidence-base of Internet-based interventions for auditory-related conditions is required to determine the existing evidence of their efficacy and effectiveness. The objective of the current protocol is to provide the methodology for a systematic review regarding the effects of Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders. METHOD:This protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. Electronic database searches will include EBSCOhost, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register performed by two researchers. This will be complemented by searching other resources such as the reference lists for included studies to identify studies meeting the eligibility for inclusion with regard to study designs, participants, interventions, comparators and outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for randomised trials will be used for the bias assessments in the included studies. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined. DISCUSSION:The result of this systematic review will be of value to establish the effects of Internet-based interventions for hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders. This will be of importance to guide future planning of auditory intervention research and clinical services by healthcare providers, researchers, consumers and stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018094801.

SUBMITTER: Beukes EW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6260838 | biostudies-other | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders: a protocol for a systematic review.

Beukes Eldré W EW Manchaiah Vinaya V Baguley David M DM Allen Peter M PM Andersson Gerhard G

Systematic reviews 20181123 1

<h4>Background</h4>Internet-based interventions are emerging as an alternative way of delivering accessible healthcare for various conditions including hearing and balance disorders. A comprehensive review regarding the evidence-base of Internet-based interventions for auditory-related conditions is required to determine the existing evidence of their efficacy and effectiveness. The objective of the current protocol is to provide the methodology for a systematic review regarding the effects of I ...[more]

PMID: 30470247

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTinnitus is the perception of sound without an external stimulus, often experienced as a ringing or buzzing sound. Subjective tinnitus is assumed to origin from changes in neural activity caused by reduced or lack of auditory input, for instance due to hearing loss. Since auditory deprivation is thought to be one of the causes of tinnitus, increasing the auditory input by cochlear implantation might be a possible treatment. In studies assessing cochlear implantation for patients with hearing loss, tinnitus relief was seen as a secondary outcome. Therefore, we will assess the effect of cochlear implantation in patients with primarily tinnitus complaints.Method and analysisIn this randomised controlled trial starting in January 2021 at the ENT department of the UMC Utrecht (the Netherlands), patients with a primary complaint of tinnitus will be included. Fifty patients (Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) >32, Beck's Depression Index <19, pure tone average at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz: bilateral threshold between 50 and ≤75 dB) will be randomised towards cochlear implantation or no intervention. Primary outcome of the study is tinnitus burden as measured by the TFI. Outcomes of interest are tinnitus severity, hearing performances (tinnitus pitch and loudness, speech perception), quality of life, depression and patient-related changes. Outcomes will be evaluated prior to implantation and at 3 and 6 months after the surgery. The control group will receive questionnaires at 3 and 6 months after randomisation. We expect a significant difference between the cochlear implant recipients and the control group for tinnitus burden.Ethics and disseminationThis research protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht (NL70319.041.19, V5.0, January 2021). The trial results will be made accessible to the public in a peer-review journal.Trial registration numberTrial registration number NL8693; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundTinnitus is defined as the subjective perception of sound in the absence of an external stimulus, and tinnitus disorder becomes relevant when it is associated with emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, and/or autonomic arousal. Hearing loss is recognized as the main risk factor for the pathogenesis of tinnitus. However, clinical guidelines for tinnitus disorder provide little direction for those who have severe-to-profound hearing loss including those who are pre-lingually Deaf. The aim of this scoping review was to catalogue what is known from the existing literature regarding the experience and management of tinnitus in adults who have a severe-to-profound hearing loss.SummaryA scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews. Records were included if they reported an evaluation of tinnitus in adults who had severe-to-profound hearing loss. The online databases Ovid (MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO), CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using the search terms 'tinnitus' (as a MESH term) and 'deaf' OR 'profound hearing loss. Thirty-five records met the inclusion criteria for this review and were cataloged according to three major themes: Impact of tinnitus in deaf adults; Primary treatment of tinnitus in deaf adults; and Cochlear implant studies where tinnitus was a secondary outcome. Tinnitus symptom severity was assessed before and after intervention using tinnitus validated questionnaires in 29 records, with six further records using other assessment tools to measure tinnitus severity. Participants using cochlear implants were included in 30 studies. Medication, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), electrical promontory stimulation, and behavioral self-control therapy were each reported in single records.Key messagesThis scoping review cataloged the experience, assessment, and treatment of tinnitus in adults who have severe-to-profound hearing loss. It is shown that there is very limited research reported in this field. Although this review included many records, most focused on the provision of cochlear implants for severe-to-profound hearing loss, with assessment and measurement of tinnitus as a baseline or secondary outcome. Largely missing in the literature are empirical studies that seek firstly to understand the nature of the experience of tinnitus by people with no or little residual access to external sound.

Project description:BackgroundMany studies have provided evidence for the effectiveness of Internet-based stand-alone interventions for mental disorders. A newer form of intervention combines the strengths of face-to-face (f2f) and Internet approaches (blended interventions).ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to provide an overview of (1) the different formats of blended treatments for adults, (2) the stage of treatment in which these are applied, (3) their objective in combining face-to-face and Internet-based approaches, and (4) their effectiveness.MethodsStudies on blended concepts were identified through systematic searches in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and PubMed databases. Keywords included terms indicating face-to-face interventions ("inpatient," "outpatient," "face-to-face," or "residential treatment"), which were combined with terms indicating Internet treatment ("internet," "online," or "web") and terms indicating mental disorders ("mental health," "depression," "anxiety," or "substance abuse"). We focused on three of the most common mental disorders (depression, anxiety, and substance abuse).ResultsWe identified 64 publications describing 44 studies, 27 of which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Results suggest that, compared with stand-alone face-to-face therapy, blended therapy may save clinician time, lead to lower dropout rates and greater abstinence rates of patients with substance abuse, or help maintain initially achieved changes within psychotherapy in the long-term effects of inpatient therapy. However, there is a lack of comparative outcome studies investigating the superiority of the outcomes of blended treatments in comparison with classic face-to-face or Internet-based treatments, as well as of studies identifying the optimal ratio of face-to-face and Internet sessions.ConclusionsSeveral studies have shown that, for common mental health disorders, blended interventions are feasible and can be more effective compared with no treatment controls. However, more RCTs on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blended treatments, especially compared with nonblended treatments are necessary.

Project description:BackgroundTinnitus is described as the perception of sound or noise in the absence of real acoustic stimulation. In the current absence of a cure for tinnitus, clinical management typically focuses on reducing the effects of co-morbid symptoms such as distress or hearing loss. Hearing loss is commonly co-morbid with tinnitus and so logic implies that amplification of external sounds by hearing aids will reduce perception of the tinnitus sound and the distress associated with it.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of hearing aids specifically in terms of tinnitus benefit in patients with tinnitus and co-existing hearing loss.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 19 August 2013.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials recruiting adults with subjective tinnitus and some degree of hearing loss, where the intervention involves amplification with hearing aids and this is compared to interventions involving other medical devices, other forms of standard or complementary therapy, or combinations of therapies, no intervention or placebo interventions.Data collection and analysisThree authors independently screened all selected abstracts. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed those potentially suitable studies for risk of bias. For studies meeting the inclusion criteria, we used the mean difference (MD) to compare hearing aids with other interventions and controls.Main resultsOne randomised controlled trial (91 participants) was included in this review. We judged the trial to have a low risk of bias for method of randomisation and outcome reporting, and an unclear risk of bias for other criteria. No non-randomised controlled trials meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. The included study measured change in tinnitus severity (primary measure of interest) using a tinnitus questionnaire measure, and change in tinnitus loudness (secondary measure of interest) on a visual analogue scale. Other secondary outcome measures of interest, namely change in the psychoacoustic characteristics of tinnitus, change in self reported anxiety, depression and quality of life, and change in neurophysiological measures, were not investigated in this study. The included study compared hearing aid use to sound generator use. The estimated effect on change in tinnitus loudness or severity as measured by the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory score was compatible with benefits for both hearing aids or sound generators but no difference was found between the two alternative treatments (MD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.92 to 6.12) (100-point scale); moderate quality evidence. No negative or adverse events were reported.Authors' conclusionsThe current evidence base for hearing aid prescription for tinnitus is limited. To be useful, future studies should make appropriate use of blinding and be consistent in their use of outcome measures. Whilst hearing aids are sometimes prescribed as part of tinnitus management, there is currently no evidence to support or refute their use as a more routine intervention for tinnitus.

Dataset Information

Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders: a protocol for a systematic review.

Publications

Internet-based interventions for adults with hearing loss, tinnitus and vestibular disorders: a protocol for a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets