Cochlear implants (CIs) are implantable hearing devices with a wide variation in clinical outcome between patients. We aim to provide an overview of the literature on prediction models and their performance for clinical outcome after cochlear implantation in bilateral hearing loss or deafness. In this systematic review, studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting clinical CI outcome were eligible for selection. A total of 4,042 references were screened. We included nine development studies and one external validation study. The outcome measure of all development studies was speech perception performance after cochlear implantation. The most commonly used model predictors were duration of hearing loss or deafness (n = 7), different types of preoperative measurements (n = 5), and etiology (n = 3). In three studies, crucial information to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction was missing. One study performed internal validation,two models were externally validated. One study reported specific discrimination or calibration performance measures. Although many articles describe development studies of prediction models for speech perception performance after cochlear implantation, the value of most of these models for their application in clinical practice remains unclear. Therefore, research should focus on increasing the clinical relevance of existing CI outcome prediction models.

Objectives: With this systematic review we aim to provide an overview of the evidence of the effect of Mindfulness Based Interventions (MBIs) on (1) tinnitus distress and (2) anxiety and/or depression in tinnitus patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo combining the terms and synonyms of "Tinnitus" and "Mindfulness." The most recent search was performed on December 4th 2018. We wrote this systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two independent authors identified studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Studies were considered eligible if they included adults with tinnitus, performed a protocolled MBI and measured tinnitus distress with validated questionnaires. Studies were appraised with either the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the MINORS criteria, depending on their design. Results: The systematic search yielded seven articles (425 patients). Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three cohort studies and one comparative controlled trial. Different types of MBIs, including MBCT and MBSR, were assessed with various questionnaires. Two of three RCTs showed a statistically significant decrease in tinnitus distress scores directly after treatment in the mindfulness group compared to the control group. Six of seven studies showed statistically significant decrease in tinnitus distress scores directly after mindfulness therapy. One of three RCTs showed a statistically significant improvement of depression questionnaire scores after MBI compared to the control group directly post treatment. Conclusions: A decrease of tinnitus distress scores in MBIs can be observed directly post-therapy based on moderate to high quality studies. This was found regardless of the heterogeneity of patients, study design, type of MBI and outcome assessment. Two out of three RCTs found clinically relevant decreases in tinnitus distress scores. No effect of MBIs was observed for depression and anxiety in tinnitus patients. Long term effects remain uncertain. Mindfulness may have a place in tinnitus therapy, although the long term effects need to be studied.

Knowledge on characteristics of people that seek help for tinnitus is scarce. The primary objective of this study was to describe differences in characteristics between people with tinnitus that seek help compared to those who do not seek help. Next, we described differences in characteristics between those with and without tinnitus. In this cross-sectional study, we sent a questionnaire on characteristics in different domains; demographic, tinnitus-specific, general- and psychological health, auditory and noise- and substance behaviour. We assessed if participants had sought help or planned to seek help for tinnitus. Tinnitus distress was defined with the Tinnitus Functional Index. Differences between groups (help seeking: yes/no, tinnitus: yes/no) were described. 932 people took part in our survey. Two hundred and sixteen participants were defined as having tinnitus (23.2%). Seventy-three of those sought or planned to seek help. A constant tinnitus pattern, a varying tinnitus loudness, and hearing loss, were described more frequently in help seekers. Help seekers reported higher TFI scores. Differences between help seekers and people not seeking help were mainly identified in tinnitus- and audiological characteristics. These outcomes might function as a foundation to explore the heterogeneity in tinnitus patients.

Introduction: The therapeutic rationale varies among tinnitus therapies. A recent study identified which outcome measures should be used for different types of interventions. What patients consider the most important outcome measure in tinnitus therapy is unclear.Objectives: To study the preference of the tinnitus patient for different outcome measures in tinnitus therapy.Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted. Participants were provided with two alternatives per choice set (nine choice sets total). Each choice-set consisted of four attributes (tinnitus loudness, tinnitus acceptance, quality of sleep and concentration). With a difference in one of three levels (increased, similar or decreased after treatment) between the alternatives. Results were analyzed with a mixed logit model. Preference heterogeneity was explored with covariates, correlating attributes and a latent class analysis.Results: One hundred and twenty-seven participants took part. In the mixed logit models we found that the choice for a tinnitus therapy was significantly affected by all levels of the outcomes, except for a similar level in concentration and tinnitus acceptance. Tinnitus loudness was considered the most important outcome measure relative to the other attributes. Preference heterogeneity was not explained by correlating attributes. The latent class analysis identified two classes. The first class was similar to the mixed logit analysis, except for a non-significance of similar quality of sleep and tinnitus acceptance. The second class showed a statistical significant preference only for increased tinnitus acceptance and similar quality of sleep.Conclusion: Based on this study, tinnitus patients consider loudness the most important outcome measure. However, there is a variance in preference as indicated by the latent class analysis. This study underlines the importance of research into tinnitus heterogeneity. Next, this study highlights the need for research into tinnitus therapies that focus on diminishing tinnitus loudness.

Tinnitus is a heterogeneous condition not only in terms of nature of the sound, but also in co-morbidities such as mental health issues. Prevalence number range widely between 5 and 43%. Even though the etiologic pathway between tinnitus and its comorbidities remains unclear, in this study we aim to assess whether people with tinnitus use more primary health care than people without tinnitus. To compare primary healthcare consumption between patients with tinnitus and people without tinnitus. In this cross-sectional study, data on number of consultations with the general practitioner or nurse practitioner mental health services were obtained from Nivel (Netherlands Institute for Health Service Research) Primary Care Database in 2018 (n = 963,880 people). People with an open tinnitus episode (n = 8050) were defined as a patient with tinnitus and compared to all other people. Percentages, means, ranges and mean differences were calculated for the total number of consultations and for organ specific diagnoses registered as ICPC-1 code on the day of consultation. Secondary, the total number of referrals to medical specialists and number of drug prescriptions was collected. Logistic regressions were performed to predict having one or more contacts, referrals, and prescriptions,with having tinnitus, this was corrected for age and gender. Patients with tinnitus had a mean of 9.8 (SD 10.9) primary care consultations in 2018, compared to 5.7 (SD 7.9) for people without tinnitus. More patients with tinnitus had more than one referral to medical specialists (47%) compared to people without tinnitus (25%). Patients with tinnitus have 1.2 (mean difference) more drug prescriptions than people without tinnitus. Compared to people without tinnitus, patients with tinnitus were more likely to have one or more of primary healthcare contact, independent of age group and gender. Patients with tinnitus had more consultations in primary health care than people without tinnitus. They are more often referred to medical specialists and receive more drug prescriptions. The causal relationship between tinnitus and the higher healthcare consumption remains to be researched.

The presence of tinnitus does not necessarily imply associated suffering. Prediction models on the impact of tinnitus on daily life could aid medical professionals to direct specific medical resources to those (groups of) tinnitus patients with specific levels of impact. Models of tinnitus presence could possibly identify risk factors for tinnitus. We systematically searched the PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles published up to January 2021. We included all studies that reported on multivariable prediction models for tinnitus presence or the impact of tinnitus on daily life. Twenty-one development studies were included, with a total of 31 prediction models. Seventeen studies made a prediction model for the impact of tinnitus on daily life, three studies made a prediction model for tinnitus presence and one study made models for both. The risk of bias was high and reporting was poor in all studies. The most used predictors in the final impact on daily life models were depression- or anxiety-associated questionnaire scores. Demographic predictors were most common in final presence models. No models were internally or externally validated. All published prediction models were poorly reported and had a high risk of bias. This hinders the usability of the current prediction models. Methodological guidance is available for the development and validation of prediction models. Researchers should consider the importance and clinical relevance of the models they develop and should consider validation of existing models before developing new ones.