Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Tinnitus | Systematic review update

Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review

Authors: Koen Viergever, Jeroen T. Kraak, Els. M. Bruinewoud, Johannes C. F. Ket, Sophia E. Kramer, Paul Merkus

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in assessing the quality of health care from a patient perspective and are increasingly used by otologists. However, selecting the right questionnaire has proven to be a difficult and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process, we will provide a comprehensive overview of existing questionnaires.

Methods

A systematic literature search has been conducted on August 26, 2019, using the EMBASE and PubMed medical databases. 13,345 unique records were extracted. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing loss, earache, otorrhoea, and ear-related pressure sensation, vertigo, itch, or dysgeusia) were identified. All questionnaires were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were adult population, closed-ended questions, English language of the questionnaire, and the availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument or a validation paper describing the validation process written in English.

Objective

Create a comprehensive overview of all validated closed-ended otology questionnaires for adults and demonstrate their basic characteristics.

Main outcome measure

The number of questionnaires in English literature for the adult population, subdivided per symptom and target population.

Results

A total of 155 unique questionnaires were selected: 33 tinnitus questionnaires, 23 vertigo questionnaires, 84 hearing loss questionnaires, and 15 multiple complaint questionnaires. A protocol for further questionnaire comparison is presented.

Discussion

Two separate sequential searches were needed to identify unique questionnaires and to identify their development/validation paper. Although many ear diseases create multiple symptoms, the majority of the questionnaires were symptom specific.

Conclusion

Many questionnaires concerning ear-related symptoms exist and predominantly concern hearing loss, vertigo, or tinnitus. Only a few questionnaires cover the multiple complaints that ear diseases can create. The presented overview is the most comprehensive overview of otology questionnaires in literature to date. It will serve as a basis for questionnaire selection by professionals and could serve as a protocol for questionnaire selection in other fields.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
2.
Bess FH, Lichtenstein MJ, Logan SA. Making hearing impairment functionally relevant: linkages with hearing disability and handicap. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;476:226–31.PubMed
3.
Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Tuley MR, Velez R, Charlip WS, et al. Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(3):188–94.CrossRef
4.
Saunders JE, Rankin Z, Noonan KY. Otolaryngology and the global burden of disease. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2018;51(3):515–34.CrossRef
5.
Granberg S, Dahlstrom J, Moller C, Kahari K, Danermark B. The ICF core sets for hearing loss--researcher perspective. Part I: systematic review of outcome measures identified in audiological research. Int J Audiol. 2014;53(2):65–76.CrossRef
6.
Akeroyd MA, Wright-Whyte K, Holman JA, Whitmer WM. A comprehensive survey of hearing questionnaires: how many are there, what do they measure, and how have they been validated? Trials. 2015;16(Suppl 1):26.CrossRef
7.
Bentler RA, Kramer SE. Guidelines for choosing a self-report outcome measure. Ear Hear. 2000;21(4 Suppl):37s–49s.CrossRef
8.
Bruinewoud EM, Kraak JT, van Leeuwen LM, Kramer SE, Merkus P. The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: a generic patient reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. A cross-sectional study on the development of this questionnaire. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018;43(1):240–8.CrossRef
9.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRef
10.
Morgan A, Hickson L, Worrall L. The impact of hearing impairment on quality of life of older people. Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear. 2002;7:39–53.CrossRef
11.
Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson N. Patient-reported outcomes: the example of health-related quality of life—a European Guidance Document for the Improved Integration of Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment in the Drug Regulatory Process. Drug Inform J. 2002;36(1):209–38.CrossRef
12.
Barker F, MacKenzie E, Elliott L, de Lusignan S. Outcome measurement in adult auditory rehabilitation: a scoping review of measures used in randomized controlled trials. Ear Hear. 2015;36(5):567–73.CrossRef
13.
Beach SR, Arias I. Assessment of perceptual discrepancy: utility of the primary communication inventory. Fam Process. 1983;22(3):309–16.CrossRef
14.
Kaplan H, Bally S, Brandt F, Busacco D, Pray J. Communication Scale for Older Adults (CSOA). J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;8(3):203–17.PubMed
15.
Martin TP, Moualed D, Paul A, Ronan N, Tysome JR, Donnelly NP, et al. The Cambridge Otology Quality of Life Questionnaire: an otology-specific patient-recorded outcome measure. A paper describing the instrument design and a report of preliminary reliability and validity. Clin Otolaryngol. 2015;40(2):130–9.CrossRef
16.
Meikle MB, Stewart BJ, Griest SE, Martin WH, Henry JA, Abrams HB, et al. Assessment of tinnitus: measurement of treatment outcomes. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:511–21.CrossRef
17.
Hall DA, Haider H, Szczepek AJ, Lau P, Rabau S, Jones-Diette J, et al. Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults. Trials. 2016;17(1):270.CrossRef
18.
Kamalski DM, Hoekstra CE, van Zanten BG, Grolman W, Rovers MM. Measuring disease-specific health-related quality of life to evaluate treatment outcomes in tinnitus patients: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;143(2):181–5.CrossRef
19.
Newman CW, Sandridge SA, Jacobson GP. Assessing outcomes of tinnitus intervention. J Am Acad Audiol. 2014;25(1):76–105.CrossRef
20.
Langguth B. A review of tinnitus symptoms beyond ‘ringing in the ears’: a call to action. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(8):1635–43.CrossRef
21.
Duracinsky M, Mosnier I, Bouccara D, Sterkers O, Chassany O. Literature review of questionnaires assessing vertigo and dizziness, and their impact on patients’ quality of life. Value Health. 2007;10(4):273–84.CrossRef
22.
Stewart VM, Mendis MD, Low CN. A systematic review of patient-reported measures associated with vestibular dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(4):971–81.CrossRef
23.
Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the tinnitus handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122(2):143–8.CrossRef
24.
Jacobson GP, Newman CW. The development of the dizziness handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;116(4):424–7.CrossRef
25.
Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1995;16(2):176–86.CrossRef
26.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review
Authors
Koen Viergever
Jeroen T. Kraak
Els. M. Bruinewoud
Johannes C. F. Ket
Sophia E. Kramer
Paul Merkus
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01659-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Systematic Reviews 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Appraisal of the diagnostic procedures of acute pancreatitis in the guidelines

Research

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and bone healing in animal models—a systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review update

Effect modification of the association between comorbidities and severe course of COVID-19 disease by age of study participants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research

What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?

Protocol

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Protocol

Self-determination theory interventions versus usual care in people with diabetes: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis