Tinnitus Practice Patterns in Korean University Hospitals: Findings from a 2025 Nationwide Survey and Comparison with 2013.

OBJECTIVES.: A 2013 nationwide survey described tinnitus management in Korean university hospitals. Since then, conceptual frameworks have broadened, and new therapies have emerged. We aimed to investigate tinnitus practice patterns among Korean university hospital otologists in 2025 and compared them with the findings in 2013. METHODS.: A cross-sectional electronic survey was distributed in October 2025 to otologists registered with the Tinnitus Study Group of the Korean Otologic Society. We assessed classification, diagnostic work-up, treatment strategies, hearing-aid fitting, and perceived barriers. Comparisons with 2013 used a predefined item-level mapping; formal hypothesis testing was not performed because individual-level 2013 data were unavailable and several items were not directly comparable. RESULTS.: Thirty-four otologists from 28 of 45 university hospitals responded. Compared with 2013, 2025 practice more often involved broader classification, psychological assessment, and structured questionnaires. Pharmacotherapy, tinnitus retraining therapy, and hearing-aid-based rehabilitation remained the main treatments. Cognitive behavioral therapy-related approaches, digital therapeutics, and neuromodulation were more widely represented but showed limited routine use. Auditory rehabilitation expanded to include CROS/BiCROS and cochlear implantation. Barriers included a lack of effective treatments, online misinformation, unrealistic expectations, and reimbursement limitations. CONCLUSION.: : Korean university hospital tinnitus care appears more structured and diversified than in 2013, emphasizing psychological assessment and auditory rehabilitation. However, universal pharmacotherapy, frequent intratympanic steroid use, heterogeneous minimal clinically important difference criteria, low real-ear measurement adoption, and limited routine use of newer modalities indicate persistent evidence-practice and outcome-standardization gaps. These findings underscore the need for stronger evidence, standardized outcomes, and health-system support for patient-centered care.