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.

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time. Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively). Conclusion CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy.

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time. Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively). Conclusion CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy.