Tinnitus handicap inventory for evaluating treatment effects: Which changes are clinically relevant?

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 145, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 282-287

  Zeman, Florian ^a   Koller, Michael ^a   Figueiredo, Ricardo ^b,c   Aazevedo, Andreia ^b,c   Rates, Marcello ^c,d   Coelho, Claudia ^c,e   Kleinjung, Tobias ^c,f   De Ridder, Dirk ^c,g   Langguth, Berthold ^c,f   Landgrebe, Michael ^c,f  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^b OTOSUL   (Brazil)

^c Tinnitus Research Initiative Tinnitus Clinics Network   (Brazil)

^d Centro de Tratamento e Pesquisa em Zumbido   (Brazil)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^f UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Tinnitus; Tinnitus handicap inventory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL GLOBAL IMPRESSION SCALE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE DURATION; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; QUALITY OF LIFE; TINNITUS; TINNITUS HANDICAP INVENTORY SCORE; ADOLESCENT; AGED; AUDITORY SYSTEM EXAMINATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISABILITY; DISEASE COURSE; HOSPITALIZATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES, OTOLOGICAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TINNITUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856391903     PISSN: 01945998     EISSN: 10976817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0194599811403882     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Hiller W, Goebel G. Factors influencing tinnitus loudness and annoyance. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:1323-1330. (Pubitemid 44956610)
2. Langguth B, Goodey R, Azevedo A, et al. Consensus for tinnitus patient assessment and treatment outcome measurement: Tinnitus Research Initiative meeting, Regensburg, July 2006. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:525-536. (Pubitemid 47588097)
3. Newman CW, Sandridge SA. Tinnitus questionnaires. In: James BS, ed. Tinnitus: Theory and Management. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker; 2004:237-254.
4. Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122:143-148. (Pubitemid 26056771)
5. Anders M, Dvorakova J, Rathova L, et al. Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of refractory chronic tinnitus: a randomized, placebo controlled study. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2010;31(2):238-249.
6. Neri G, De Stefano A, Baffa C, et al. Treatment of central and sensorineural tinnitus with orally administered melatonin and sulodexide: personal experience from a randomized controlled study. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2009;29(2):86-91.
7. Claire G, Preben HS, Torben W, Jan S. Effectiveness of a tinnitus management programme: a 2-year follow-up study. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2009;9:6.
8. Landgrebe M, Binder H, Koller M, et al. Design of a placebo-controlled, randomized study of the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of chronic tinnitus. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;15:8-23.
9. Newman CW, Sandridge SA, Jacobson GP. Psychometric adequacy of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) for evaluating treatment outcome. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;9:153-160.
10. Landgrebe M, Zeman F, Koller M, et al. The Tinnitus Research Initiative (TRI) database: a new approach for delineation of tinnitus subtypes and generation of predictors for treatment outcome. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10:42.
11. Guy W. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: US Department of Heath, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; 1976.
12. McCombe A, Bagueley D, Coles R, McKenna L, McKinney C, Windle-Taylor P. Guidelines for the grading of tinnitus severity: the results of a working group commissined by the British Association of Otolaryngologists, Head and Neck Surgeons. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2001;16:388-393. (Pubitemid 32995191)
13. Letícia PS, Vanessa NT, Celso DI, Daniel D, Mariana MS. Brazilian Portuguese Language version of the "Tinnitus Handicap Inventory": validity and reproducibility. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2006;72(6):808-810.
14. Monzani D, Genovese E, Marrara A, et al. Validity of the Italian adaptation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory: focus on quality of life and psychological distress in tinnitus-sufferers. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008;28(3):126-134.
15. Zachariae R, Mirz F, Johansen L, Andersen S, Bjerring P, Pedersen C. Reliability and validity of a Danish adaptation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Scand Audiol. 2000;29(1):37-43. (Pubitemid 30093135)
16. Kaiser L. Adjusting for baseline: Change or percentage change. Stat Med. 1989;8:1183-1190.
17. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol. 1904;15:72-101.
18. Kolen MJ, Brennan RL. Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking: Methods and Practices. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag GmbH; 2004.
19. Leucht S, Kane JM, Etschel E, Kissling W, Hamann J, Engel RR. Linking the PANSS, BPRS, and CGI: clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31:2318-2325. (Pubitemid 44413213)
20. Leucht S, Kane JM, Kissling W, Hamann J, Etschel E, Engel R. Clinical implications of Brief Psychatric Rating Scale scores. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:366-371. (Pubitemid 41442390)
21. Leucht S, Kane JM, Kissling W, Hamann J, Etschel E, Engel RR. What does the PANSS mean? Schizophr Res. 2005;79:231-238. (Pubitemid 41457263)
22. Jensen AR, Saccuzzo DP, Larson GE. Equating the advanced and standard form of the Raven progressive matrices. Educ Psychol Meas. 1988;48:1091-1095.
23. Price LR, Lurie A, Wilkins C. EQUIPERCENT: A SAS program for calculating equivalent scores using the equipercentile method. Appl Psychol Meas. 2001;25:332.
24. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
25. Smithson M. Confidence Intervals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
26. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality-of-life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582-592.
27. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee BJ. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:139-144. (Pubitemid 28041591)
28. Osoba D. Interpreting the meaningfulness of changes in healthrelated quality of life scores: lessons form studies in adults. Int J Cancer Suppl. 1999;12:132-137.
29. Montgomery SA. Clinically relevant effect sizes in depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 1994;4:283-284.
30. Todd KH, Funk KG, Funk JP, Bonacci R. Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27:485-489. (Pubitemid 26103814)