Tinnitus Guidelines and Their Evidence Base
Journal of Clinical Medicine · 2023 · Europe
Source and licence
- Authors
- Berthold Langguth, Tobias Kleinjung, Winfried Schlee et al.
- Title
- Tinnitus Guidelines and Their Evidence Base
- Journal
- Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2023
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0
- Changes
- Verbatim excerpts; formatting adapted
Full text retrieved 2026-10-27 from Europe PMC · PMC10178961
Licence statement of the original publication
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
This page reproduces excerpts of the original publication; the original is authoritative. It has not been reviewed by a physician, does not state a recommendation of Medelix and does not replace medical advice. The guideline may have been updated since.
This is a review of another guideline (Compared tinnitus guidelines incl. German S3 2021 and European 2019 (unverified), DGHNO-KHC (S3 Chronischer Tinnitus) / European multidisciplinary tinnitus guideline 2021). We do not reproduce that guideline's recommendations here – they belong to the original guideline.
Open the original publication →Full text on Europe PMC
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is generally accepted as the gold standard for high-quality medicine and, thus, for managing patients with tinnitus. EBM integrates the best available scientific information with clinical experience and patient values to guide decision-making about clinical management. To help health care providers and clinicians, the available evidence is commonly translated into medical or clinical guidelines based on a consensus. These involve a systematic review of the literature and meta-analytic aggregation of research findings followed by the formulation of clinical recommendations. However, this approach also has limitations, which include a lack of consideration of individual patient characteristics, the susceptibility of guideline recommendations to material and immaterial conflicts of interest of guideline authors and long latencies till new knowledge is implemented in guidelines. A further important aspect in interpreting the existing literature is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These circumstances could result in the decoupling of recommendations and their supporting evidence, which becomes evident when guidelines from different countries differ in their recommendations. This opinion paper will discuss how these weaknesses can be addressed in tinnitus.
Contents of the original publication
The section headings of the original.
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1. Tinnitus and Evidence-Based Medicine
- 1.2. Translating Evidence from Clinical Trials into Guideline Recommendations
- 2. Materials and Methods
- 3. Results
- 3.1. Overview of the Evidence for Therapeutic Interventions in Tinnitus
- 3.2. Guidelines Overview
- 4. Discussion
- 4.1. Current Evidence in Tinnitus Treatment: Limitations and Challenges
- 4.2. Considerations for Future Directions
- 5. Conclusions
A question about this guideline?
Medelix answers clinical questions from guidelines and studies – every statement with its source.
Are you the rights holder and object to this reproduction? Write to contact@medelix.ai and we will take the page down promptly. Imprint