A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed list of outcomes that are measured and reported in all clinical trials for a particular health condition. An ‘e-Delphi’ is an increasingly popular method for developing a COS whereby stakeholders are consulted via a multi-round online survey to reach agreement regarding the most important outcomes. Many COS studies seek diverse, international input that includes professionals and healthcare users. However, the recruitment and retention of participants can be deterred by various factors (e.g. language barriers and iterative, time-consuming rounds). This report evaluates the effectiveness of recruitment and retention methods used in the Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus International Delphi (COMiT’ID) study using participant feedback from healthcare users, healthcare practitioners, researchers, commercial representatives and funders. A range of methods were applied to recruit participants to the study and maintain engagement over the three rounds. Feedback on recruitment and retention methods was collected using a twenty-item online questionnaire, with free text comments. A personalised email invitation was the most frequent recruitment route, and 719 professionals and healthcare users consented to take part. Retention of each stakeholder group ranged from 76 to 91% completing all three e-Delphi rounds. Feedback was given by 379 respondents. A majority of respondents were satisfied with the study methods that were implemented to promote retention. Over 55% indicated that their overall experience closely matched their expectations at the start of the study, and over 90% felt that their contribution was appreciated. This report highlights study methods that worked well with respect to recruitment and retention, and those that did not. Findings provide a unique contribution to the growing evidence base of good practice in COS development by demonstrating the relative effectiveness of recruitment and retention methods for an e-Delphi survey. This project was registered (November 2014) in the database of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. The protocol is published in Trials (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2123-0).

Questionnaires are essential for measuring tinnitus severity and intervention-related change but there is no standard instrument used routinely in research settings. Most tinnitus questionnaires are optimised for measuring severity but not change. However, the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) claims to be optimised for both. It has not however been fully validated for research purposes. Here we evaluate the relevant psychometric properties of the TFI, specifically the questionnaire factor structure, reproducibility, validity and responsiveness guided by quality criteria for the measurement properties of health-related questionnaires. The study involved a retrospective analysis of data collected for 294 members of the general public who participated in a randomised controlled trial of a novel tinnitus device (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01541969). Participants completed up to eight commonly used assessment questionnaires including the TFI, Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire (THQ), a Visual Analogue Scale of loudness (VAS-Loudness), Percentage Annoyance question, the Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck's Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and the World Health Organisation Quality of Life-Bref (WHOQOL-BREF). A series of analyses assessed the study objectives. Forty four participants completed the TFI at a second visit (within 7-21 days and before receiving any intervention) providing data for reproducibility assessments. The 8-factor structure was not fully confirmed for this general (non-clinical) population. Whilst it was acceptable standalone subscale, the 'auditory' factor showed poor loading with the higher order factor 'functional impact of tinnitus'. Reproducibility assessments for the overall TFI indicate high internal consistency (α = 0.80) and extremely high reliability (ICC: 0.91), whilst agreement was borderline acceptable (93%). Construct validity was demonstrated by high correlations between scores on the TFI and THI (r = 0.82) and THQ (r = 0.82), moderate correlations with VAS-L (r = 0.46), PR-A (r = 0.58), BDI (r = 0.57), BAI (r = 0.39) and WHOQOL (r = -0.48). Floor effects were observed for more than 50% of the items. A smallest detectable change score of 22.4 is proposed for the TFI global score. Even though the proposed 8-factor structure was not fully confirmed for this population, the TFI appears to cover multiple symptom domains, and to measure the construct of tinnitus with an excellent reliability in distinguishing between patients. While the TFI may discriminate those whose tinnitus is not a problem, floor effects in many items means it is less appropriate as a measure of change in this subgroup. Further investigation is needed to determine whether these effects are relevant in other populations.

There are a large number of assessment tools for tinnitus, with little consensus on what it is important to measure and no preference for a minimum reporting standard. The item content of tinnitus assessment tools should seek to capture relevant impacts of tinnitus on everyday life, but no-one has yet synthesised information about the range of tinnitus complaints. This review is thus the first comprehensive and authoritative collection and synthesis of what adults with tinnitus and their significant others report as problems in their everyday lives caused by tinnitus. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, as well as grey literature sources to identify publications from January 1980 to June 2015 in which participants were enrolled because tinnitus was their primary complaint. A manual search of seven relevant journals updated the search to December 2017. Of the 3699 titles identified overall, 84 records (reporting 86 studies) met our inclusion criteria and were taken through to data collection. Coders collated generic and tinnitus-specific complaints reported by people with tinnitus. All relevant data items were then analyzed using an iterative approach to narrative synthesis to form domain groupings representing complaints of tinnitus, which were compared patients and significant others. From the 86 studies analyzed using data collected from 16,381 patients, 42 discrete complaints were identified spanning physical and psychological health, quality of life and negative attributes of the tinnitus sound. This diversity was not captured by any individual study alone. There was good convergence between complaints collected using open- and closed-format questions, with the exception of general moods and perceptual attributes of tinnitus (location, loudness, pitch and unpleasantness); reported only using closed questions. Just two studies addressed data from the perspective of significant others (n = 79), but there was substantial correspondence with the patient framework, especially regarding relationships and social life. Our findings contribute fundamental new knowledge and a unique resource that enables investigators to appreciate the broad impacts of tinnitus on an individual. Our findings can also be used to guide questions during diagnostic assessment, to evaluate existing tinnitus-specific HR-QoL questionnaires and develop new ones, where necessary. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015020629 . Protocol published in BMJ Open. 2016;6e009171.

Hypersensitivity to external sounds is often comorbid with tinnitus and may be significant for adherence to certain types of tinnitus management. Therefore, a clear measure of sensitivity to sound is important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ) for use as a measurement tool using data from a sample of 264 adults who took part in tinnitus research. We evaluated the HQ factor structure, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and floor and ceiling effects. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) and moderate correlations were observed between the HQ, uncomfortable loudness levels, and other health questionnaires. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the original HQ three-factor solution and a one-factor solution were both a poor fit to the data. Four problematic items were removed and exploratory factor analysis identified a two-factor (attentional and social) solution. The original three-factor structure of the HQ was not confirmed. All fourteen items do not accurately assess hypersensitivity to sound in a tinnitus population. We propose a 10-item (2-factor) version of the HQ, which will need to be confirmed using a new tinnitus and perhaps nontinnitus population.

Background.There is no universally accepted definition for hyperacusis, but in general it is characterised by decreased sound tolerance to ordinary environmental sounds. Despite hyperacusis being prevalent and having significant clinical implications, much remains unknown about current management strategies.Purpose.To establish the current position of research on hyperacusis and identify research gaps to direct future research.Design and Sample.Using an established methodological framework, electronic and manual searches of databases and journals identified 43 records that met our inclusion criteria. Incorporating content and thematic analysis approaches, the definitions of hyperacusis, management strategies, and outcome measures were catalogued.Results. Only 67% of the studies provided a definition of hyperacusis, such as “reduced tolerance” or “oversensitivity to sound.” Assessments and outcome measures included Loudness Discomfort Levels, the Hyperacusis Questionnaire, and Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT) interview. Management strategies reported were Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, TRT, devices, pharmacological therapy, and surgery.Conclusions. Management strategies were typically evaluated in patients reporting hyperacusis as a secondary complaint or as part of a symptom set. As such the outcomes reported only provided an indication of their effectiveness for hyperacusis. Randomised Controlled Trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies for patients experiencing hyperacusis.

Subjective tinnitus is a chronic heterogeneous condition that is typically managed using intervention approaches based on sound devices, psychologically informed therapies, or pharmaceutical products. For clinical trials, there are currently no common standards for assessing or reporting intervention efficacy. This article reports on the first of two steps to establish a common standard, which identifies what specific tinnitus-related complaints (“outcome domains”) are critical and important to assess in all clinical trials to determine whether an intervention has worked. Using purposive sampling, 719 international health-care users with tinnitus, health-care professionals, clinical researchers, commercial representatives, and funders were recruited. Eligibility was primarily determined by experience of one of the three interventions of interest. Following recommended procedures for gaining consensus, three intervention-specific, three-round, Delphi surveys were delivered online. Each Delphi survey was followed by an in-person consensus meeting. Viewpoints and votes involved all stakeholder groups, with approximately a 1:1 ratio of health-care users to professionals. “Tinnitus intrusiveness” was voted in for all three interventions. For sound-based interventions, the minimum set included “ability to ignore,” “concentration,” “quality of sleep,” and “sense of control.” For psychology-based interventions, the minimum set included “acceptance of tinnitus,” “mood,” “negative thoughts and beliefs,” and “sense of control.” For pharmacology-based interventions, “tinnitus loudness” was the only additional core outcome domain. The second step will next identify how those outcome domains should best be measured. The uptake of these intervention-specific standards in clinical trials will improve research quality, enhance clinical decision-making, and facilitate meta-analysis in systematic reviews.