Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Sereda M, McFerran D, Axon E, Baguley DM, Hall DA, Potgieter I, et al.
    Int J Audiol, 2020 08;59(8):640-646.
    PMID: 32134348 DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2020.1733677
    Objective: To develop an innovative prioritisation process to identify topics for new or updated systematic reviews of tinnitus research.Design: A two-stage prioritisation process was devised. First, a scoping review assessed the amount of randomized controlled trial-level evidence available. This enabled development of selection criteria for future reviews, aided the design of template protocol and suggested the scale of work that would be required to conduct these reviews. Second, using the pre-defined primary and secondary criteria, interventions were prioritised for systematic review.Study sample: Searches identified 1080 records. After removal of duplicates and out of scope works, 437 records remained for full data charting.Results: The process was tested, using subjective tinnitus as the clinical condition and using Cochrane as the systematic review platform. The criteria produced by this process identified three high priority reviews: (1) Sound therapy using amplification devices and/or sound generators; (2) Betahistine and (3) Cognitive behaviour therapy. Further secondary priorities were: (4) Gingko biloba, (5) Anxiolytics, (6) Hypnotics, (7) Antiepileptics and (8) Neuromodulation.Conclusions: A process was developed which successfully identified priority areas for Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for subjective tinnitus. This technique could easily be transferred to other conditions and other types of systematic reviews.
  2. Zerillo JA, Schouwenburg MG, van Bommel ACM, Stowell C, Lippa J, Bauer D, et al.
    JAMA Oncol, 2017 May 01;3(5):686-694.
    PMID: 28384684 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0417
    Importance: Global health systems are shifting toward value-based care in an effort to drive better outcomes in the setting of rising health care costs. This shift requires a common definition of value, starting with the outcomes that matter most to patients.

    Objective: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets of outcomes by medical condition. In this article, we report the efforts of ICHOM's working group in colorectal cancer.

    Evidence Review: The working group was composed of multidisciplinary oncology specialists in medicine, surgery, radiation therapy, palliative care, nursing, and pathology, along with patient representatives. Through a modified Delphi process during 8 months (July 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016), ICHOM led the working group to a consensus on a final recommended standard set. The process was supported by a systematic PubMed literature review (1042 randomized clinical trials and guidelines from June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic colorectal cancer convened during a teleconference in August 2015), and a patient validation survey (among 276 patients with and survivors of colorectal cancer between October 15, 2015, and November 4, 2015).

    Findings: After consolidating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented to the WG and underwent voting. The final recommendation includes outcomes in the following categories: survival and disease control, disutility of care, degree of health, and quality of death. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline to facilitate comparison of results across treatments and health care professionals.

    Conclusions: A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.

  3. De Ridder D, Schlee W, Vanneste S, Londero A, Weisz N, Kleinjung T, et al.
    Prog Brain Res, 2021;260:1-25.
    PMID: 33637213 DOI: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2020.12.002
    As for hypertension, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders with particular symptoms, a commonly accepted and unambiguous definition provides a common ground for researchers and clinicians to study and treat the problem. The WHO's ICD11 definition only mentions tinnitus as a nonspecific symptom of a hearing disorder, but not as a clinical entity in its own right, and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-V doesn't mention tinnitus at all. Here we propose that the tinnitus without and with associated suffering should be differentiated by distinct terms: "Tinnitus" for the former and "Tinnitus Disorder" for the latter. The proposed definition then becomes "Tinnitus is the conscious awareness of a tonal or composite noise for which there is no identifiable corresponding external acoustic source, which becomes Tinnitus Disorder "when associated with emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, and/or autonomic arousal, leading to behavioural changes and functional disability.". In other words "Tinnitus" describes the auditory or sensory component, whereas "Tinnitus Disorder" reflects the auditory component and the associated suffering. Whereas acute tinnitus may be a symptom secondary to a trauma or disease, chronic tinnitus may be considered a primary disorder in its own right. If adopted, this will advance the recognition of tinnitus disorder as a primary health condition in its own right. The capacity to measure the incidence, prevalence, and impact will help in identification of human, financial, and educational needs required to address acute tinnitus as a symptom but chronic tinnitus as a disorder.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links