Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 20;10(1):119.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01659-9.

Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review

Affiliations

Questionnaires in otology: a systematic mapping review

Koen Viergever et al. Syst Rev. .

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: PROSPERO CRD42017058155.

Keywords: Ear diseases; Otolaryngology; Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); Questionnaires.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart illustrating the study selection process. Search 1 encompasses the identification of questionnaires through screening of the records originating from the database searches and by expert recommendation. Search 2 encompasses the eligibility assessment of the potentially relevant questionnaires by identifying and assessing their development and/or validation paper. This resulted in the inclusion of validated questionnaires. Records could be excluded at every step of the process, after screening of the title and abstract of the database record [1], full-text assessment of the database record [2], failure to identify a development or validation paper [3], and during eligibility assessment of development or validation paper [4]

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Bess FH, Lichtenstein MJ, Logan SA. Making hearing impairment functionally relevant: linkages with hearing disability and handicap. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;476:226–231. - PubMed
    1. 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):188–194. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-3-188. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saunders JE, Rankin Z, Noonan KY. Otolaryngology and the global burden of disease. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2018;51(3):515–534. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2018.01.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.851799. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types