Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:32:13.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Systematic Review Questionnaires in Otology

Presenting Author: Paul Merkus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

Paul Merkus
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Center Amsterdam
Koen Viergever
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Center Amsterdam
Els Bruinewoud
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Center Amsterdam
Lisette Van Leeuwen
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Center Amsterdam
Sophia Kramer
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Center Amsterdam
Hans Ket
Affiliation:
VU University Medical Center Amsterdam
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstracts
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Learning Objectives:

  • To help the ENT surgeon identifying the most suitable questionnaire for their practice.

  • To give a brief overview of all available otologic questionnaires.

Introduction: A Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM), like a questionnaire, is a valuable tool in assessing quality of health care from a patient perspective. Questionnaires are widely used by otologists. However, the large number of available questionnaires makes it almost impossible for the ENT surgeon to choose which one to use.

Methods: A systematic literature search has been conducted using the Embase and Pubmed medical databases. Questionnaires addressing any otologic complaint (tinnitus, hearing, earache, otorrhea, itch, dizziness, pressure sensation, and taste) were evaluated for eligibility by two independent researchers. Inclusion criteria were: human adult population, closed end questionnaire, English language and availability of the original article describing the development of the instrument. Methodological quality was assessed by using the COSMIN-criteria: a checklist providing a standard for design requirements and preferred statistical analyses.

Results: A large number of questionnaires was found. The following outcome variables will be presented in our overview: the number of items, response scales, subscales, cut-off/end points, reliability and validity. If possible, the questionnaires will be ranked according to usefulness and actual use in literature.

Conclusion: A large number of otologic questionnaires is available in literature. The presented overview will highlight the best available questionnaires in the follow-up of otologic patients.