CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-14). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2514 · Search date 2026-08-14 · Methodology v0.7

CBT-based tinnitus care,
does it really help with Reduced tinnitus-related distress and functional impairment?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 50 · Safety acceptable
CBT-based tinnitus care produced modest reductions in distress and functional burden.
No major direct harm signal was reported for CBT-based tinnitus care. New unilateral or pulsatile tinnitus, sudden hearing loss, or neurologic symptoms require medical evaluation first.
What the
research shows
The grade is C. In a 492-person Dutch trial, specialized CBT-based care produced TQ -8.062 and THI -7.506 versus usual care, with standardized effects of 0.43 to 0.45. A 158-person US internet-CBT trial found TFI 36.57 versus 46.31, d=0.46. The trials were independent but used different scales and estimands, so strict replication was not claimed; effects also fell just below the conventional medium magnitude of 0.5. Consistent modest improvement gives C with 50 points.
What the
ads claim
Reduced distress is not disappearance of tinnitus. The result of multidisciplinary stepped care also should not be relabeled as the isolated effect of CBT alone.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • TQ, THI, and TFI measure patient-reported distress and functional burden rather than the physical loudness of tinnitus.
  • The Beukes program comprised 22 audiologist-guided internet modules.
  • No duplicate of CBT-based tinnitus care by distress or handicap was found in the existing verdict list.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2514 · C 50
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Cima tested multidisciplinary stepped care combining CBT, tinnitus retraining, and audiological elements against standardized audiological usual care. Beukes tested eight-week online CBT against weekly monitoring and used intention-to-treat analysis. Follow-up survey completion was 107/148 (72.3%) at T1 and 91/148 (61.0%) at T2, showing substantial longer-term attrition. Neither trial could blind participants, and both relied on self-reported outcomes.

02

Why this is classified as C (50)

Two independent publicly funded RCTs improved tinnitus distress, but they used nonidentical scales and estimands and were not counted as strict replication. With no verified between-group clinical threshold, magnitude was classified statistically; d=0.43-0.46 fell below 0.5. One public-independence strength gives C with 50 points.

Counterpoint. C does not mean no effect; it means average benefit was modest and strict same-measure replication was absent.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — We cross-checked the papers and trial registries for primary scales, intention-to-treat analysis, attrition, funding, and standardized effect sizes.

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE~Statistically positive but below the threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
CBT-based tinnitus care reduces tinnitus distress and handicap.CIndependent RCTs showed modest effects of d=0.43-0.46.
CBT-based care eliminates the tinnitus sound itself.?The pivotal trials measured distress and handicap, not disappearance of the sound.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Multicenter individual randomized trial247Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, ZonMwHUI, TQ, and THI over 12 monthsHUI +0.059 (95% CI 0.025-0.094; d=0.24); TQ -8.062 (-10.829 to -5.295; d=0.43); THI -7.506 (-10.661 to -4.352; d=0.45)Pivotal publicly funded confirmatory trial
Study 2Two-arm online individual randomized trial0NIH/NIDCD R21DC017214Primary TFI tinnitus distressPost-treatment 36.57 (SD 22.00) versus 46.31 (SD 20.63); d=0.46 (95% CI 0.14-0.77), intention-to-treatIndependent small, short supportive trial
§

Receipt — 2 References

All 2 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-14).

Cima RFF, Maes IH, Joore MA, et al. Specialised treatment based on cognitive behaviour therapy versus usual care for tinnitus: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9830):1951-1959. PMID: 22633033. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60469-3. NCT00733044.
checked
Beukes EW, Andersson G, Fagelson M, Manchaiah V. Internet-Based Audiologist-Guided Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Tinnitus: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(2):e27584. PMID: 35156936. DOI: 10.2196/27584. NCT04004260.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-14 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

CBT-based tinnitus care x reduced tinnitus distress and handicap Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] CBT-based tinnitus care x reduced tinnitus distress and handicap — Evidence Grade C·50. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/mood/cbt-based-tinnitus-care-distress-handicap/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.