Assessing the Effects of Tinnitus Retraining Therapy in Patients Lost to Follow-up

[Stink]

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the efficacy of tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT), especially in patients who did not revisit the clinic after starting the program, and to determine the current status of patients who were lost to follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN:
Telephone survey.

SETTING:
Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS:
Forty-seven patients enrolled in a TRT program at Seoul National University Hospital. Twenty-four patients who regularly visited the clinic were deemed the good follow-up (GF) group, and 23 patients who did not return after the initial counseling were deemed the follow-up loss (FL) group.

INTERVENTIONS:
Post-TRT questionnaires with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and a tinnitus visual analog scale (VAS), performed with a telephone survey.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
TRT efficacy, evaluated via the THI, and tinnitus VAS scores. A questionnaire on reasons for non-attendance after TRT was used.

RESULTS:
Pre-TRT VAS and THI scores showed no significant difference between groups. After TRT, both groups showed significant decreases in tinnitus VAS and THI scores. Post-TRT VAS scores for awareness, effects on daily life, and post-TRT THI scores were significantly lower in the FL group.

CONCLUSIONS:
Treatment outcomes were better in the FL group than in the GF group in several parameters. The FL group was greatly influenced by the first TRT counseling and obtained sufficient relief that they no longer felt the need for additional treatment. Treatment outcomes in patients lost to follow-up may not be as bad as presumed.


Link to study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25756459

 

[joejunior]

Suggest this is filed under 'Alternative Treatment and Research.'

 

[amandine]

CONCLUSIONS:
Treatment outcomes were better in the FL group than in the GF group in several parameters. The FL group was greatly influenced by the first TRT counseling and obtained sufficient relief that they no longer felt the need for additional treatment. Treatment outcomes in patients lost to follow-up may not be as bad as presumed.

I dont understand. How can they know that the results were better with the loss follow up group (FL) as they were by their very description not followed up..............
So the follow up group showed less improvement (FG) but they would only have the results of the FG group...........

Or do you mean that they were followed up but by telephone calls - maybe the ones who didnt return had lower T in the first place and so didnt need to return - or am i assuming that from the telephone calls they were able to establish that the ones who did not go back were better...................so if that is the case the only help they had with their T would be the white noise generators so that means that the White noise generators are the only and main effective part of TRT then..........so would that be right............cos if it was the speaking part of the therapy then it would be the ones who regularly visited the clinic who did better as they would have had the speaking part of the therapy..........

sorry but dont understand. I must be missing something and dont want to be particularly stupid here but maybe you could explain that to me please.........if what I have said above is correct then we must assume that it is the white noise generators that do the stuff and not much else.
Maybe itis possible to ask @Dr. Nagler his opinion or what he makes from this survey........would be useful to hear his imput on this.......as he knows more about TRT than any of us here.
Thanks Dr, Nagler if you can answer this for us

thanks a lot