![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Response from Humphriss et al
Dear Dr Kennedy and colleagues,
Thank you for your letter to the editor in reference to our recently published TIJA paper. We appreciate you taking the time to reflect upon it.
Your letter raises two issues. First, you indicate that you are ‘puzzled by the conclusion that this implied that there is no clinical need for a paediatric tinnitus service.’ We do not recognize this statement, so apparently you may have over-interpreted what was written in the paper. Our article does indicate that the prevalence data we report ‘does not necessarily indicate a large unmet clinical demand,’ and in the Discussion we indicate that the prevalence of clinically significant tinnitus is an important factor in the design and commissioning of services for these children and their families. In no way did we intend to indicate that there is no clinical need for a paediatric tinnitus service.
Second, you argue for the case for all children attending an Audiology or ENT facility being asked about tinnitus, indicating that rather than over-reporting, this will facilitate the identification of children with troublesome tinnitus. This discussion has been ongoing, but was not illuminated by data until now: our paper indicates that 28.1% of 11-year-olds in the general population will answer that they do have tinnitus, but this will be clinically significant in 3.1%, thus 25% of children would have their attention drawn to their non-significant tinnitus. It is up to the individual clinician to come to his/her own view on this matter.
Sincerely, Rachel Humphriss, Amanda Hall, David Baguley