↓ Skip to main content

A narrative synthesis of research evidence for tinnitus-related complaints as reported by patients and their significant others

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A narrative synthesis of research evidence for tinnitus-related complaints as reported by patients and their significant others
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0888-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deborah Ann Hall, Kathryn Fackrell, Anne Beatrice Li, Rachel Thavayogan, Sandra Smith, Veronica Kennedy, Catarina Tinoco, Evelina D. Rodrigues, Paula Campelo, Tânia D. Martins, Vera Martins Lourenço, Diogo Ribeiro, Haúla F. Haider

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 32 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 23%
Psychology 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 37 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,447,712
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#165
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,469
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#13
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.