Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various symptoms. However, the mechanisms of tinnitus are still uncertain, and a standardized assessment of the diagnostic criteria for tinnitus is required. We aimed to reach a consensus on diagnosing tinnitus with professional experts by conducting a Delphi study with systematic review of the literature. Methods: Twenty-six experts in managing tinnitus in Korea were recruited, and a two-round modified Delphi study was performed online. The experts evaluated the level of agreement of potential criteria for tinnitus using a scale of 1–9. After the survey, a consensus meeting was held to establish agreement on the results obtained from the Delphi process. Consensus was defined when over 70% of the participants scored 7–9 (agreement) and fewer than 15% scored 1–3 (disagreement). To analyze the responses of the Delphi survey, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Consensus was reached for 22 of the 38 statements. For the definition of tinnitus, 10 out of 17 statements reached consensus, with three statements achieving complete agreement including; 1) Tinnitus is a conscious perception of an auditory sensation in the absence of a corresponding external stimulus, 2) Tinnitus can affect one’s quality of life, and 3) Tinnitus can be associated with hearing disorders including sensorineural hearing loss, vestibular schwannoma, Meniere’s disease, otosclerosis, and others. For the classification of tinnitus, 11 out of 18 statements reached consensus. The participants highly agreed with statements such as; 1) Vascular origin is expected in pulse-synchronous tinnitus, and 2) Tinnitus can be divided into acute or chronic tinnitus. Among three statements on the diagnostic tests for tinnitus only Statement 3, “There are no reliable biomarkers for sensory or emotional factors of tinnitus.”reached consensus. All participants agreed to perform pure-tone audiometry and tinnitus questionnaires, including the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Tinnitus Questionnaire. Conclusion We used a modified Delphi method to establish a consensus-based definition, a classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. The expert panel reached agreement for several statements, with a high level of consensus. This may provide practical information for clinicians in managing tinnitus.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a nursing clinical judgment scale (NCJS) and verify its validity and reliability in assessing the clinical judgment of nurses. Methods: A preliminary instrument of the NCJS comprising 38 items was first developed from attributes and indicators derived from a literature review and an in-depth/focus interview with 12 clinical nurses. The preliminary tool was finalized after 7 experts conducted a content validity test based on a data from a preliminary survey of 30 hospital nurses in Korea. Data were collected from 443 ward, intensive care unit, emergency room nurses who voluntarily participated in the survey through offline and online for the verification of the construct validity and reliability of the scale. Results: The final scale comprised 23 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Six factors – integrated data analysis, evaluation and reflection on interventions, evidence on interventions, collaboration among health professionals, patient-centered nursing, and collaboration among nurse colleagues – accounted for 64.9% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the fit of the measurement model, comprising six factors (root mean square error of approximation = .07, standardized root mean square residual = .04, comparative fit index = .90). Cronbach’s α for all the items was .92. Conclusion The NCJS is a valid and reliable tool that fully reflects the characteristics of clinical practice, and it can be used effectively to evaluate the clinical judgment of Korean nurses. Future research should reflect the variables influencing clinical judgment and develop an action plan to improve it.