Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Eleftheria Iliadou
 + 3662 word(s) 3662 2021-04-20 10:28:33 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 Meta information modification 3662 2021-05-06 03:57:52 | |
3 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 4239 word(s) 7901 2021-05-06 04:08:33 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Iliadou, E. Tinnitus. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/9309 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
Iliadou E. Tinnitus. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/9309. Accessed April 20, 2024.
Iliadou, Eleftheria. "Tinnitus" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/9309 (accessed April 20, 2024).
Iliadou, E. (2021, May 05). Tinnitus. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/9309
Iliadou, Eleftheria. "Tinnitus." Encyclopedia. Web. 05 May, 2021.
Tinnitus
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/jcm10081737

Tinnitus is traditionally described as the perception of a sound in the absence of corresponding external stimuli. In a very recent consensus article, a more precise definition of tinnitus has been proposed: Tinnitus was defined as “the conscious awareness of a tonal and/or noise sound for which there is no identifiable corresponding external acoustic source” and tinnitus disorder was defined as “tinnitus plus tinnitus-associated emotional distress and functional disability”.

tinnitus tinnitus treatment randomized controlled trial

1. Introduction

Tinnitus is considered an enigmatic situation and universally accepted answers to fundamental questions about its pathophysiology, course, and optimal treatment are still pending [1][2][3]. Its prevalence is estimated more than 10% in the general population; however, it is considered bothersome only in approximately 1% [2][3]. These numbers are of paramount importance, since, according to the recently released European Tinnitus Guidelines, clinical approach and decision ma-king should take into account not only tinnitus existence but also patient’s reaction to tinnitus [1]. Tinnitus is considered as a symptom well tolerated by the majority of individuals; however, it might cause levels of annoyance which can be adequate to make tinnitus the determining factor for significant impairment of the perceived health status and the overall quality of life.

One of the few things considered common ground among tinnitus community is that no optimal and universal tinnitus treatment has been reached yet [1][4]. Despite the fact that a wide range of interventions including, but not limited to, drugs and medicinal products, sound amplification, sound therapy, psychological interventions, and transcranial magnetic stimulation have been applied, none of them is universally accepted as an adequate and globally effective solution for the whole spectrum of tinnitus sufferers [1].

Hence, there is a pattern across the tinnitus literature according to which, a varying subgroup of responders is found in most of the studies [4]. This could be attributed to statistical variance, but it could also be claimed that some therapeutic interventions could potentially be beneficial in a specific subgroup of patients with identifiable characteristics. Very few studies, however, attempt to create and identify a certain profile correlating with treatment response and the main research question is limited to whether an intervention is effective or not in a group of patients, rather than which factors influence treatment response [5][6].

Moreover, tinnitus related literature has some specific barriers, on top of the issues identified as problematic in medical literature in general, such as sample size calculation, study settings, statistical analysis, and selection bias [7]. These drawbacks include the heterogeneity of tinnitus patients, the fluctuation in tinnitus perception, the subjective nature of tinnitus and therefore the lack of objective outcome measures, the common existence of comorbidities, as well as their interaction with tinnitus perception and the different perception of tinnitus in different cultures, as well as in different times by the same individual [8][9][10].

Consequently, it could be stated that the reasons for the lack of an established and effective treatment are both native and intrinsic, as well as subjective. Aim of this paper is to summarize factors, objective restraints, methodological flaws, and research insufficiencies, in order to provide some explanation for the fact that no universal tinnitus treatment has been established yet.

2. Discussion on Tinnitus

2.1. Tinnitus Duration and Intermittent Character

Tinnitus is a subjective symptom and in many cases it fluctuates over time [1]. Typically, patients report either fluctuations that might or might not be influenced by external factors or by their emotional status, for example levels of environmental noise or stress [1]. In the vast majority of studies, the outcome measures consist of questionnaires that are handed out at specific time points and supposed to evaluate a certain period of time [5]. This method has a fundamental flaw by default: even if patients are asked to provide information about the tinnitus severity over a defined time period (e.g., one week), the tinnitus severity at the moment when the questionnaire is filled out dominates. Tinnitus fluctuations over time or even periods without tinnitus are typically not sufficiently reflected due to memory and reporting bias. When patients are asked to fill in the questionnaire, the results will depend on their emotional status in general and particularly at the time information was provided, their overall attitude and tinnitus perception, and also on their tendency to focus on negative aspects. These confounding factors influence both the presence as well as the level of annoyance and consequently the tinnitus reporting. Therefore, they can be considered as an intrinsic difficulty that is present as a systematic bias across tinnitus related studies.

A potential solution to this could be the use of ecological momentary assessment, which is commonly integrated through mobile applications and allows ongoing recording of fluctuations in tinnitus severity as well as the correlation with certain incidents and behaviors which are captured at the same time (e.g., environmental noise, road traffic, etc.) [11]. This approach, if not well designed or capable of adjustments, may contradict efforts of habituation, since it requires that patients be frequently occupied with their tinnitus and its characteristics.

Only one of the studies took into account the duration of tinnitus within specific time intervals [12]. This finding is remarkable, as an expert consensus initiative from 2007 for tinnitus assessment and outcome measurement proposed that tinnitus patients should be asked about which percentage of their time they perceive their tinnitus?” [13].

Of course, even if asked, this information would be difficult to collect, due to recall bias and inability of patients to provide reliable information in regards to tinnitus duration due to different factors commonly mentioned, including fluctuation of tinnitus occurrence and perceived loudness if present, masking in noisy environments and lack of focus. Intrinsic issues already mentioned have not allowed a universally accepted answer to fundamental question in regards to tinnitus fluctuations, like whether patients with intermittent tinnitus tend to experience less annoyance or whether their treatment response is expected to be better [14]. Consequently, tinnitus duration and fluctuation and whether it was intermittent or not and under which conditions, was not taken into account as a factor in data analysis and interpretation neither, which is a possibly interesting point that should be considered by future studies.

2.2. Level of Perceived Annoyance

One of the few things that are considered common ground in tinnitus literature is the fact that the majority of people with tinnitus do not consider their tinnitus bothersome [3]. Overall prevalence, often replicated in the introductory parts of tinnitus studies considered as exceeding 10% in the general population is based on surveys in large samples [3]. On one hand, in the generation of these epidemiological data, some methodological considerations might arise about the criterion used to define tinnitus. On the other hand, the phrasing of the probably largest survey (“In the past 12 months, have you been bothered by ringing, roaring, or buzzing in your ears or head that lasts for 5 min or more?) seems clear enough in terms of adequate duration (excluding brief spikes), type of sound (noise rather than hallucinations), and time frame (one year and not whole life time). In any case, reproducibility of similar numbers in different countries confirms that these estimations should be close to reality [15].

As expected, the number of tinnitus sufferers seeking help by health professionals are much lower than the estimated prevalence [1]. This is of course easily explained by the fact that tinnitus is considered either as not a problem, or a small problem, often reported as non-bothersome. This also reflects to common clinical experience, according to which, a considerable group of patients with other chief complaints might mention tinnitus only when specifically asked. At the same time there is a subgroup of people with catastrophic tinnitus, who describe their tinnitus and the consequences as dramatical.

The discrepancy between the number of people with tinnitus and the number of those who seek medical help might also partly be due to the limited therapeutic options. A person suffering from tinnitus, who is told by the physician that there are no established possibilities to reduce the loudness of the tinnitus, might try to accept the situation without seeking further medical help.

As a result, it would be expected that tinnitus treatment studies, aiming to offer a solution to tinnitus sufferers, should select their participants accordingly and only include patients with a satisfactory level of annoyance, in order to fulfill a fundamental principle of medical research: ability to replicate their results to the target population.

According to the findings of our review, only 22 out of 73 RCTs clearly mention a minimum level of tinnitus annoyance in their inclusion criteria (Table 1). All popular questionnaires (THI, TFI, and TQ) are used, as well as Visual Analog Scales. THI is used in 12 of the studies, thresholds for inclusion however vary from 18 to 38 with four additional intermittent values: 20, 25, and 30. Only one study has set both lower and upper limits, using TFI, in order to define a certain range [12].

Of course, it is reasonable to assume that individuals with non-bothersome tinnitus will not easily reach a tinnitus clinic and on top of this, be motivated for a usually demanding participation in an RCT. In addition, baseline values give an estimation of the overall annoyance.

Including a reasonable level of annoyance, using the outcome measures chosen for the specific RCT ideally not only setting lower but also upper limits, should be considered good practice in future RCTs.

2.3. Tinnitus Audiological Characteristics

Tinnitus frequency can vary from constant to less than weekly. There is also a considerable proportion of patients who state that their tinnitus is only detectable in the absence of any acoustic stimulation, typically before they fall asleep. On top of this, there is a wide range of sounds considered similar to the type of tinnitus sound. Typically, tinnitus pitch is better matched with high frequencies, although there is a considerable proportion of patients who either cannot easily identify a matching sound or better attribute to low frequencies [15]. Determination of tinnitus pitch, loudness, and minimum masking level can be useful in clinical practice, in spite of their questionable role and their fluctuating nature.

However, a robust relationship between tinnitus pitch, loudness and masking level and tinnitus prognosis and severity in terms of annoyance, functionality and handicap has not been established [16]. This means that in the studies investigating the effect of various treatments these characteristics are not useful as outcome parameter. This has been confirmed in our review, in which none of the studies used this type of data neither for outcome measurement, nor as a predictor for treatment outcome.

2.4. Tinnitus and Hearing Loss

It is widely reproduced in the literature that hearing loss is present in approximately 90% of tinnitus patients [3]. However, it is also common ground that existence as well as degree of hearing loss are not able to predict tinnitus occurrence and severity [1]. Since pathophysiology of tinnitus is complex and involves both auditory and brain function, it is impressive that hearing loss, although present in the vast majority of tinnitus patients, has not been thoroughly studied as a prognostic factor of tinnitus course, prognosis, and treatment response [1].

This gap is clearly reflected in the extracted literature. Only seven out of 73 studies clearly state in their inclusion criteria that tinnitus was considered as primary complaint by the participants (Table 1). It could be assumed that patients with hearing loss as their primary complaint would not be motivated to participate in tinnitus oriented RCTs. This means that an unknown proportion of study participants could have tinnitus, but not as primary complaint. The primary complaint could be hearing loss and tinnitus only the secondary complaint. Moreover, it is commonly seen in clinical practice that patients present with their primary complaint of tinnitus, but when they are clinically evaluated it is discovered that their main complaint and everyday handicap is their hearing loss. Consequently, and in accordance with common clinical experience, it could be hypothesized that these groups of patients are not homogenous in principle and combine patients in a wide spectrum between hearing loss and tinnitus as primary complaints—and all the shades in between. It is assumed that this could influence results and treatment response, especially in treatments like hearing aids. On top of this, even if identifying tinnitus as primary (but not only) complaint could potentially improve sample homogeneity, it could still exclude a significant group of patients who would consider hearing loss as their cardinal problem and also have adequately bothersome or even catastrophic tinnitus at the same time.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies: Inclusion criteria.
Author, Year Primary Objective N Age (Years) Tinnitus as Primary Complaint Tinnitus Onset (Months) Tinnitus Laterality
Uni/Bilateral		 Minimum Tinnitus Threshold Hearing Loss Use of Hearing Aids
Considered
Anders, 2010 [17] Evaluation of the efficacy of 1 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of tinnitus. 42 18–70 No >6 months Both No Age-adjusted normal sensorineural hearing No
Biesinger, 2010 [18] Effect of a Qigong intervention on patients with tinnitus with somatosensoric components 80   Yes >3 months Not determined No Normal audiogram No
Dehkordi, 2011 [19] Effect of gabapentin therapy on idiopathic tinnitus 80 18–85 No >2 months Unilateral No Not determined No
Sziklai, 2011 [20] Effect of pramipexole, a dopamine receptor agonist, influenced tinnitus associated with presbycusis 40 >50 No >1 year Not determined No Bilateral SNHL No
Westin, 2011 [21] Comparison of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) with tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) on tinnitus 64 ≥18 Yes ≥6 months Not determined THI ≥ 30 Hearing thresholds which would allow for the use of wearable sound generators No
Cima, 2012 [22] Effect of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) versus usual care 492 >18 No   Not determined No Not determined No
Han, 2012 [23] Comparison between Clonazepam and gingko biloba 38   No 2 months Not determined No Not determined No
Hesser, 2012 [24] Effects on global tinnitus severity of 2 Internet-delivered psychological treatments, acceptance, and commitment therapy (ACT) and CBT, in guided self-help format 99 >18 No >6 months Not determined THI ≥ 38 Not determined No
Hoare, 2012 [25] Comparison between different methods of frequency discrimination training on tinnitus percept 70   No 6 months Not determined No <40 dB in at least one frequency No
Jeon, 2012 [26] Effect of acupuncture versus sham 33 18–60 No 6 months Unilateral No Mean of 0.5, 1, and 2 kHz
Audiogram > 50 dB		 No
Kreuzer, 2012 [27] Efficacy of a specific mindfulness- and body-psychotherapy based program in patients suffering from chronic tinnitus 36 18–80 No >6 months Not determined No Not determined No
Ngao, 2012 [28] Effect of transmeatal low-power laser stimulation (TLLS) 43   Yes   Not determined No Not determined No
Plewnia, 2012 [29] Safety and efficacy of bilateral CTBS to the temporal and temporoparietal cortex in the treatment of chronic tinnitus. 48   No <5 years Not determined No Not determined No
Rocha, 2012 [30] Efficacy of myofascial trigger point (MTP) deactivation for tinnitus relief in patients with myofascial pain syndrome 71   No >3 months Not determined No Not determined No
Tass, 2012 [31] Comparison between CR (4 different groups) vs. placebo 63 >18 No 6 months Not determined No <50 dB in all frequencies No
Choi, 2013 [32] Comparison between intratympanic steroids and placebo 30   No   Not determined No Not determined No
Coelho, 2013 [33] Effect of zinc versus placebo 115 >60 No 6 months Not determined No Not determined No
Hoekstra, 2013 [34] Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation(rTMS) on tinnitus 50   No >2 months Not determined No Not determined No
Mollasadeghi, 2013 [35] Effect of low laser beam in tinnitus 89 ≤50 No   Not determined No >15 dB at least at one of 3, 4, and 6 kHz No
Nyenhuis, 2013 [36] The efficacy of CBT-oriented interventions for acute tinnitus on a broader data basis. 185 18–75 No 2–26 weeks Not determined No Not determined No
Sönmez, 2013 [37] Comparison between ozone and betahistine 68 18–75 No 6 months Not determined No No No
Taslimi, 2013 [38] Effect of ondansedron 53 18–70 No 3 months Not determined No Not determined No
Dos Santos, 2014 [39] Evaluation of combined use of amplification and sound generator and their combination 49   No At least 6 months Not determined THI > 20 Mild to moderate symmetrical sensorineural hl No
Hoare, 2014 [40] Frequency discrimination training (FDT) delivered in a gaming format have significant therapeutic benefit in tinnitus 60   No   Not determined No ≥20 dB in at least one frequency, ≤40 dB average No
Jasper, 2014 [41] Effects of conventional face-to-face group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) and an Internet-delivered guided self-help treatment iCBT on tinnitus distress 128 ≥18 Yes ≥6 months Not determined THI ≥ 18 or mini-TQ ≥ 8 Not determined No
Shekhawat, 2014 [42] Comparison of multisession anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) of the left temporoparietal area would enhance sound therapy from hearing aids. 40   No >2 years Not determined TFI > 25 Aidable HL No
Teismann, 2014 [43] Combine (TMNMT) with transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) in an effort to modulate TMNMT efficacy in the treatment of tinnitus 34   No ≥3 months Both No Not determined No
Dehkordi, 2015 [44] Effect of low-dose laser therapy on chronic cochlear tinnitus 66   No   Not determined No Not mentioned No
Bilici, 2015 [45] 5 groups: 3 types of rTMS, paroxetine, placebo 75   No 1 year Not determined No Normal hearing No
Folmer, 2015 [46] Effect of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation 61   No   Not determined No Not determined No
Kreuzer, 2015 [47] Comparison of medial frontal stimulation with double cone coil and conventional prefrontal left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)-stimulation (study arm 2/control group) both followed by stimulation of the left temporo-parietal junction area 40   No >6 months Not determined No Not determined No
Malinvaud, 2015 [48] Comparison between CBT and virtual reality interactive intervention 148 18–70 No 12 months Unilateral No Normal to mild No
Pal, 2015 [49] Investigation of the efficacy and safety of repeated sessions of a novel transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) protocol by combining bilateral cathodal TDCS to the auditory cortex (AC) with anodal stimulation of the prefrontal cortex (PFC). 42   No ≥1 year Not determined No Age-adjusted normal hearing according to the presbycusis scale No
Thabit, 2015 [50] Effect of different types of rTMS and their combination 30 >18 No 6 months Both No Not determined No
Albu, 2016 [51] Effectiveness of intratympanic (IT) steroids and melatonine versus melatonine only in acute tinnitus 60   No Acute (within 3 months) Unilateral No Not mentioned No
Doi, 2016 [52] Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for tinnitus 50   No Not determined Not determined THI: moderate to severe Not determined No
Henry, 2016 [53] Effect on tinnitus severity by using tm-TRT-ted 148   No   Not determined No Not determined No
Laureano, 2016 [54] Effect of acupuncture on brain perfusion using (99m) ethyl cysteinate dimer single-photon emission computed tomography ((99m) Tc-ECD SPECT) in patients with tinnitus 57 18–60 No >3 months Both No Up to 25 dB No
Lehner, 2016 [55] Comparison between two types of rTMS 49 18–70 No 6 months Not determined THI > 38 Not determined No
Li, 2016 [56] Compare the effects of personalized, altered music to unaltered music on subjective tinnitus 34 ≥18 No ≥12 months Both THI > 26 Hearing loss ≤70 dB No
Lim, 2016 [57] Efficacy of cilostazol, a selective phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor, in patients with chronic tinnitus 50 >19 No 3–12 months Both Vas ≥ 4 Not determined No
Rojas-roncancio, 2016 [58] Effect of manganese and lipoflavonoid plus on tinnitus 40   No >6 months Not determined Tinnitus loudness and annoyance > 50% Not determined No
Roland, 2016 [59] Evaluation of the neural network changes in patients with bothersome chronic tinnitus who underwent rTMS treatment targeting the left temporoparietal junction (TPJ), as compared to those who received sham therapy. 30 18–60 No ≥6 months Not determined THI > 30 Not determined No
Singh, 2016 [60] Effect of B12 versus placebo 40 18–60 No 6 months Not determined No Not determined No
Stein, 2016 [61] The effect of a sound therapy (tailor-made notched music training, TMNMT) against tinnitus 100 18–70 No ≥3 months Both No Hl ≤70 dB hl in the frequency ranges of one-half octave above and below the tinnitus frequency No
Weise, 2016 [62] Effect of iCBT 61 >18 Yes >6 months Not determined THI > 38 or mini-TQ > 13 Not determined No
Wise, 2016 [63] Effects of an auditory attention training game with those of a control game across tinnitus, attention, and electrophysiological measures 31 18–70 No >6 months Not determined Tinnitus problem rating scale > mild <80 Db HL nonconductive HL No
Zarenoe, 2016 [64] Effects of motivational interview (MI) as an adjunct to regular HA fitting for patients with tinnitus and hearing loss. 46   No   Not determined No Not determined No
Elzayat, 2016 [65] To evaluate the effectiveness of adding lidocaine to intratympanic steroid in the patients with idiopathic subjective tinnitus (IST). 44   No   Not determined No Not determined No
Kallogjeri, 2017 [66] To evaluate the effect of the brain fitting program-tinnitus on tinnitus. 60 20–65 No >6 months Not determined According to bothersome scale Not determined No
Kim, 2017 [67] Effect of different approaches of acupuncture 39 20–75 No 2 weeks Not determined No Not determined No
Landgrebe, 2017 [68] Evaluation of the efficacy of a two-week 1-Hz-RTMS in patients with chronic tinnitus. 146 18–70 No >6 months Not determined THI > 38 Normal, age-adjusted hearing levels. Conductive hearing loss ≤ 15 db. No
Mckenna, 2017 [69] Effect of mindfulness based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in tinnitus severity, psychological distress, functional disability, avoidance, and negative cognitions and a greater increase in tinnitus acceptance. 75 ≥18 No >6 months Not determined No Hearing levels allowing participation in group discussions No
Arif, 2017 [70] Relaxation therapy and mindfulness 61 >18 Yes   Not determined No Not determined No
Beukes, 2017 [71] Efficacy of guided internet based cognitive behavioral treatment (iCBT) 146 >18 No >3 months Both TFI > 25 Not determined No
Sahlsten, 2017 [72] E-field navigation should versus non-navigated rTMS 39 18–65 No 6 months–10 years Both No Not determined No
Theodoroff, 2017 [73] To determine if an acoustic stimulus mimicking the tinnitus perception delivered during sleep from the Otoharmonics corporation’s LEVO system reduces tinnitus-related distress and/or perceived loudness of tinnitus during awake hours for people who experience bothersome tinnitus 58 30–72 No >6 months Not determined TFI > 25 <70 dB hl, in all frequencies between 0.25 and 8 kHz No
Tyler, 2017 [74] Effect of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired with sounds in chronic tinnitus patients 30 22–65 No >1 year Both No Not determined No
Lee, 2018 [75] Effect of intratympanic steroids on acute tinnitus 54   No Acute (one month) Unilateral No Not determined No
Beukes, 2018 [76] Evaluation of an Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy intervention versus face to face 92 >18 No Not determined Not determined No Not determined Yes
Abtahi, 2018 [77] Effectiveness of anodal and cathodal methods in reducing the intensity of tinnitus 51 18–80 No >1 year Not determined No Not determined No
El Beaino, 2018 [78] Effect of sulodexide (heparin and dermatan) vs. placebo 124 >18 No 12 months Not determined No Not determined No
Hong, 2018 [79] Effect of nitrous oxide on tinnitus   18–65 No >6 months Not determined According to bothersome scale Not determined No
Godbehere, 2019 [80] Theta burst TMS are an effective treatment for chronic tinnitus 40 >18 No Not determined Both No No HL, mild and moderate HL No
Hall, 2019 [12] Effect of AUTt00063, a novel centrally acting drug) potent and selective modulator of kv3.1 and kv3.2 voltage-gated potassium channels) vs. placebo 76 >18 Yes >6, <18 months Both TFI > 24 and <68 <60 db in 0.5,1,2,4 kHz No
Li, 2019 [81] Clinical efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for treatment of chronic subjective tinnitus 100   No >3 months Not determined No Not determined No
Noh, 2019 [82] To investigate the effects of active dual-site rTMS treatment on reducing tinnitus using a double-blind randomized controlled trial. 30   No   Not determined No Not determined No
Prozchazkova, 2019 [83] Comparison between gingko biloba and pentoxifylline 197 >30 No 3 months Not determined Mini TQ > 5 Not determined No
Radunz, 2019 [84] Comparison between ginkgo biloba, HA, and their combination 35 >18 No 3 months Both No All types of hearing loss No
Sahlsten, 2019 [85] Comparison of neuronavigated versus non-navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation 40 18–65 No 6 months–10 years Both Numeric scale > 4 Not determined No
Scherer, 2019 [86] To compare the efficacy of tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) and its components, ST, and TC, with the standard of care (SOC) in reducing the negative effect of tinnitus on quality of life. 98   No >1 year Not determined TQ > 40 Functionally adequate hearing sensitivity without requirement of amplification No
Yakunina, 2019 [87] Evaluation of the effects on tinnitus of hearing aids (HA) alone without accompanying counseling or any other therapy additionally, whether FL techniques (LFT and FT) performed compared with conventional WDRC in the same open-fit HA in terms of tinnitus suppression for patients with high frequency hearing loss (HFHL). 94 >18 No ≥3 months Not determined THI > 18
Vas ≥ 50%		 SNHL No
Tutar, 2020 [88] Efficacy of transcutaneous electric stimulation applied to the auricula 60 18–65 No >3 months Not determined No Not determined No

If just dealing with the existence of hearing loss is complex, taking the degree of hearing loss into account is even more challenging. More than one third of RCTs (25 out of 73) include a range of hearing loss in their inclusion criteria, whereas none of them analyzed the audiogram as a predictor for treatment response. Even those studies in which hearing levels were mentioned as inclusion criterion, they have typically vague descriptions of hearing functions, such as “normal hearing levels”, hearing levels allowing conversation or mild, moderate, or severe hearing loss without an explicit definition or the respective thresholds.

In accordance, among the studies that evaluated other interventions than hearing aids, there was no study that took into consideration the use of hearing aids neither as an inclusion/exclusion criterion nor as a predictor nor as a confounder. The latter is potentially a hidden but significant risk of bias, since tinnitus improvement is considered as high as 55% in several case series analyzing hearing aids [4]. This could influence results in two ways; first, a selection bias, since only patients were included in the trial, in which hearing aid use was not effective to sufficiently decrease tinnitus annoyance; second, an unclear effect of a prolonged or recent use of hearing aids, which might influence the performance of an unknown proportion of hearing aids users both in the interventional and control arms. A clear exclusion of patients with a relatively recent hearing aid fitting should be considered as good practice in future RCTs.

The currently starting UNITI trial is strategically planned as an attempt to overcome the mentioned issues. Only patients with tinnitus as primary complaint will participate, and degree of hearing loss will be analyzed with sophisticated techniques as a potential confounder for treatment response. In addition, the efficacy of hearing aids as a sole measure to improve tinnitus will be tested for the first time in the context of a RCT against interventions based on other disciplines, like CBT [11].

2.5. Remarks on Study Methodology

Tinnitus interventions, in accordance with tinnitus pathophysiology, are heterogenous. In the RCTs collected, a wide spectrum of therapeutic strategies is performed ranging from transcranial magnetic and vagus nerve stimulation to internet-based CBT and altered/notched music (Table 2). A pattern that causes deviation from an optimal study design and is valid for various interventions is the inability to blind patients with respect to control interventions. For example, a blinded RCT comparing true and sham hearing aids is not feasible, since participants in the sham group will immediately recognize the sham devices, given that they will be unable to provide acoustic amplification.

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies: study procedures and outcome measures.
Author,
Year		 Treatment Control Group Intervention Randomization Outcome Measures Monitoring Duration Power Analysis Results Is Treatment Effective?
Abtahi,
2018 [77]		 Anodal Stimulation, Cathodal Stimulation Sham Stimulation Unclear Tinnitus Intensity Variations on A Scale Between −4 and +4. In This Scale, −4 Indicated Worsening Conditions, +4 Meant Full Recovery, And Zero Conveyed No Change in The Tinnitus Intensity. 2 Months No Anodal Stimulation Was More Effective Than the Cathodal and Control Stimulation in Reducing the Intensity of Tinnitus in The Short Term Yes, Between Two Versions of The Same Treatment
Albu,
2016 [51]		 Intratympanic (IT) Steroid and Melatonin Melatonin Unclear THI, PSQI, BDI 3 Months No Better Response in The Combined Group of Melatonine And IT In Acute Tinnitus Patients Yes
Anders,
2010 [17]		 Active or Sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) Sham Rtms Unclear VAS, THI 26 Weeks No 1 Hz Rtms Treatment Was Capable of Significantly Reducing the Total Baseline Score of Basic Scales That Measure Tinnitus Severity No
Arif,
2017 [70]		 Relaxation Therapy or Mindfulness Meditation Treatment Over A Period Of 15 Weeks Relaxation Procedure Clear Primary: TRQ
Secondary VAS and A Health State Thermometer.		 15 Weeks No Changes in Tinnitus Loudness and THI (but not TRQ) with the Customized Sound Therapy Were Statistically Greater Than Those of The Broadband Noise Therapy No
Beukes,
2017 [71]		 Internet-based cognitive behavioral treatment (iCBT) Intervention ICBT After 8 Weeks Algorithm Implemented by Independent Researcher Primary: TFI, Secondary: ISI, GAD-7, PHQ-9, HHIA-S, HQ, CFQ, SWLS 2 Months 80% Guided ICBT For Tinnitus Using Audiological Support Resulted in Statistically Significant Reductions in Tinnitus Distress and Comorbidities (Insomnia, Depression, Hyperacusis, Cognitive Failures) And Improved Quality of Life. Yes
Beukes,
2018 [76]		 Internet-
Based Intervention		 Face-To-Face Tinnitus Care Unclear THI, TFI 2 Months 90% ICBT And F2F Interventions Are not Effective for Reducing Tinnitus Distress and Most Tinnitus-Related Difficulties. No
Biesinger,
2010 [18]		 10 Qigong Training Sessions No Treatment Unclear VAS, TBF-12 3 Months No No Statistically Significant Changes in Both Groups No
Bilici,
2013 [45]		 rTMS Paroxetine, Placebo Unclear THI, TSI, BAS, PSS 6 Months No No Significant Improvement Neither for Rtms Groups nor For Controls No
Choi,
2013 [32]		 IT Steroids Placebo Clear THI. VAS 1 Month No No Significant Difference Between IT Steroids and Placebo No
Cima,
2012 [22]		 CBT Usual Care Clear HUI, HADS, TFQ 12 Months No Superiority Of CBT Yes
Coelho,
2013 [33]		 Zinc Placebo Unclear THQ 4 Months 90% No Significant Differences Between Zinc and Placebo No
Dehkordi,
2011 [19]		 Gabapentin Placebo Unclear TSI 26 Months No No Statistically Significant Difference Between the Two Groups In TSI. No
Dehkordi,
2015 [44]		 Active Laser Treatment Inactive Dummy Treatment Unclear TSI 4 Weeks No No Statistically Significant Improvement Neither in Laser nor In Control Group No
Doi,
2016 [52]		 Acupuncture No Treatment Randomization Was Carried Out with The Aid of Computerized Table of Random Numbers Created by A Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. VAS, THI 5 Weeks No Treatment with Acupuncture Improves the Perception of Tinnitus, Decreases the Intensity Level, Hence There Is No Comparison Between Levels of Improvement Yes,
Against Placebo In 5 Weeks, However No Comparison of Decrease
Dos Santos, 2014 [39] Hearing Aids + Sound Generator Hearing Aids Unclear THI 3 Months 80,0% No Superiority of The Combined Use of Amplification and Sound Generator Over Conventional Amplification Alone in Reducing the Discomfort of Tinnitus. Both Groups Presented Similar Responses in Both Reduction of Discomfort Caused by Tinnitus No
El Beaino,
2018 [78]		 Sulodexide Placebo Unclear THI, Mini TQ Right After Treatment 80% Improvement in THI and Mini TQ Right After the End of Treatment with Sulodexide Yes
Elzayat,
2018 [65]		 Group A Was Injected with Combined Lidocaine 2% And Dexamethasone 8 Mg/2 mL (ITLD). Group B Was Injected Only by Dexamethasone 8 Mg/2 ML. (ITD). ITD As A Controlled Group Clear THI, VAS, ATQ 6 Months No Both Treatments Were Effective but No Difference Between Groups Was Found Yes
Folmer,
2015 [46]		 rTMS Daily For 2 Weeks Sham Rtms With A Same Looking Coil Unclear TFI 26 Months No Significant Improvement in Active Compared to Placebo Group Yes
Godbehere, 2019 [80] Theta Burst TMS Placebo Arm Unclear TFI 4 Weeks No No Significant Difference in Scores Between the Active Treatment Group and The Sham Control Group No
Hall,
2019 [12]		 AUT00063 Placebo Clear TFI, VAS 28 Days 90% No Significant Improvement for Both Groups (Channel Blocker and Placebo) No
Han,
2012 [23]		 Clonazepam Ginkgo Biloba Unclear THI, VAS, Loudness Scale   No Improvement with Use of Clonazepam and Not Gingko Biloba, but Right After Treatment Yes
Henry,
2016 [53]		 TM-TRT-TED No Treatment Clear THI 18 Months 80% No Statistically Significant Improvement In THI. By 6 Months, The TED Group Showed Significant Improvement from Baseline and Its Improvement Was Not Significantly Different from That Shown in TM Or TRT. No
Hesser,
2012 [24]		 CBT Or ACT Monitored Internet Discussion Forum Clear Primary: THI, Secondary: HADS 1 Year 80% The Effect of ACT Compared with The Control Condition at Posttreatment on The Primary Outcome Was in The Moderate Range and Comparable to The Effect Observed Following CBT (D = 0.68 vs. D = 0.70). No
Hoare,
2012 [25]		 Frequency Training Different Frequency Training   THQ 4 Weeks 80% Statistically and Clinically Meaningful Improvement in All Groups. No Difference Between Groups Yes
Hoare,
2014 [40]		 To Play A Tailored Video Game For 30 Minutes, 5 Days A Week For 4 Weeks Another Type Of FDT Clear THQ 4 Weeks 80% Statistically but Not Clinically Significant Changes in One of The Games Used No
Hoekstra,
2013 [34]		 rTMS in 1000Hz Placebo Unclear Primary: TQ. Secondary THI, VAS 6 Months 80% No Significant Difference Between Groups No
Hong,
2018 [79]		 40 Minutes Session of Nitrous Oxide Under General Anesthesia Same Procedure Without Nitrous Oxide Clear TFI 2 Weeks 81% No Significant Differences Between Intervention and Control Group. Neither Groups Had Clinical or Statistically Significant Improvement No
Jasper,
2014 [41]		 GCBT, iCBT Web-Based Discussion Forum (DF) Unclear THI, Mini-TQ, Secondary: HADS, ISI, TAQ 6 Months No ICBT And Conventional GCBT Do Not Have Significant Differences Effects on Tinnitus Distress and Associated Problems. No
Jeon,
2012 [26]		 Acupuncture Sham Unclear THI, VAS   No No Significant Differences Between Acupuncture and Sham No
Kallogjeri,
2017 [66]		 Brain fitness program tinnitus (BFP-T) No Treatment Unclear THI, TFI, Global Bother Score 8 Weeks 85% No Statistically Significant Changes Between Study Groups. No
Kim,
2017 [67]		 Manual Acupuncture Electroacupuncture Unclear THI, VAS   80% No Significant Improvement for Any Acupuncture Group In Regards To THI and Loudness No
Kreuzer,
2012 [27]		 Mindfulness and Body Group Therapy Waiting List (Therapy After 24 Weeks) Unclear TQ 24 Weeks No A Significant Reduction in The TQ Score (Baseline vs. Week 9) Compared to The Waiting List Control Group, However Difference Was Not Stable in Long Term F/U No
Kreuzer,
2015 [47]		 Medial Frontal Stimulation with Double Cone Coil + Stimulation of The Left Temporo-Parietal Junction Area Conventional Prefrontal Left DLPFC-Stimulation + Stimulation of The Left Temporo-Parietal Junction Area Unclear TQ, Secondary: THI, CGI-CHANGE, Whoqol-Bref-Questionnaire 12 Weeks No ΤICDC-Stimulation Non-Superior to Standard Rtms Regarding Both Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures. No
Landgrebe, 2017 [68] 2 Week Treatment Real 1-Hz-Rtms vs. Sham Rtms Sham Rtms Clear Primary: The Change of Tinnitus Severity Assessed by Means of The Change of The TQ Sum Score Between Baseline Score vs. Day 12. Secondary: Changes of The TQ Sum Score, The THI and TSS During the Treatment and The Follow-Up Period. Further: Changes of Overall Illness Severity, Changes in Depressive Symptoms, Changes in Quality of Life and Changes in Psychoacoustic Measures of Tinnitus. 26 Weeks No Real 1-Hz-Rtms Applied to The Left Temporal Cortex Did Not Provide Any Therapeutic Benefit as Compared to Sham Treatment in Patients with Chronic Tinnitus. No
Laureano,
2016 [54]		 True
Acupuncture 99mTC-ECD SPECT		 Sham Acupuncture Unclear Primary: SPECT Measurements, Secondary: THI, VAS, HAS, BDI 12 Weeks 80% No Significant Differences After Treatment Were Observed with Regard to the VAS, HAS or BDI Between the Treatment Groups. No
Lee,
2018 [75]		 IT Steroids Placebo (Saline) Clear THI, VAS 1 Month 80% No Difference Between IT And Placebo Groups No
Lehner,
2016 [55]		 High Frequency rTMS Single Site Rtms Clear TQ, THI, 6 Months 80% No Difference Between Groups No
Li,
2016 [56]		 Music Altered by The Software to Treat Tinnitus Unaltered Music Unclear THI, TFI, HADS 12 Months 80% Statistically Significant and Clinically Meaningful Effects of The Therapy as Indicated by The Consistent Treatment-Control Group Difference in THI Score and The Significant Reduction in THI Score Within the Treatment Group During The 12-Month Period. Yes
Li,
2019 [81]		 Masking Therapy+ Sound Treatment + CBT Masking Therapy + Sound Treatment (Tinni Test) Unclear THI, SCL-90 6 Months No Effective Rate in Intervention Group Was Significantly Higher Than That in Control Group (P < 0.01) Yes
Lim,
2016 [57]		 Oral 100 mg Cilostazol Placebo Unclear VAS, THI, SF-36 4 Weeks No THI Failed to Show A Significant Drug Effect of Cilostazol No
Malinvaud, 2015 [48] Virtual reality (VR) CBT Clear STSS, THI, THQ, VAS   No Both VR And BT Groups Improved Yes
Mckenna,
2017 [69]		 RT Or MBCT Treatment vs. Waiting Period Without Treatment RT Treatment Group Clear Primary: TQ, CORE-NR, Secondary: CORE-OM, VAS, TFI, HADS, TCS, T-FAS, TAQ, MAAS, WSAS 6 Months 80.0% MBCT Is More Effective in Reducing Tinnitus Severity Than Both A Waiting Period and An Active Treatment of Equal Intensity (RT) Yes
Mollasadeh, 2013 [35] Low Laser Beam Placebo Unclear THI, VAS, Loudness Scale 3 Months No Larger Improvement in Low Beam Laser Compared to Placebo, Hence More Than 50% Of Intervention Group Without Improvement Yes
Ngao,
2012 [28]		 TLLS Sham Unclear THI, VAS Right After Intervention No No Significant Difference Between TLLS And Sham No
Noh,
2019 [82]		 Dual-Site Rtms Or Sham Rtms Sham Rtms Unclear Primary: THI, Secondary: VAS 8 Weeks No A Beneficial Effect of Rtms On Tinnitus Suppression Was Found in The Dual-Site Active Rtms Group, but Not in The Sham Rtms Group. Yes
Nyenhuis,
2013 [36]		 Internet Training, Bibliotherapy, Group Treatment or An Information-Only Condition. Information Only Clear Primary: TQ, Secondary: BL, PHQ-D 9 Months 80.0% Improvement Rates Were Higher in The Active Training Conditions Than in The Control Condition, And Deterioration Rates Were Generally Lower in The Training Conditions In TQ. Yes
Pal,
2015 [49]		 transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS)   Unclear Primary: THI, Secondary: STSS, HAD, VAS, CGI 3 Months 80.0% This TDCS Protocol Did Not Show A Beneficial Effect on Tinnitus. No
Plewnia,
2012 [29]		 CTBS Over the Secondary Auditory Cortex (SAC), The Temporoparietal Association Cortex (TAC), Or Sham Stimulation [Placebo (PLC)]. Placebo Clear TQ 3 Months 80% No Difference Between Real and Sham Treatments nor Between Temporal and Temporoparietal Ctbs. No
Prozchazkova,
2019 [83]		 Ginkgo Biloba Pentoxifylline Unclear VAS, Mini TQ, HADS 3 Months No Both Gingko Biloba and Pentoxifylline Improve Mini TQ. No Difference Between Groups Yes
Radunz,
2019 [84]		 Gingko Biloba HA Unclear THI, VAS 6 Months No Both Gingko Biloba Improved Compared to Baseline, No Difference Between Groups Though, Apart from Long Lasting Tinnitus Yes
Rocha,
2012 [30]		 10 Sessions of Myofascial Trigger Point Deactivation 10 Sessions with Sham Deactivation Unclear THI 3 Months No MTP Deactivation Through Digital Pressure Was Deemed Effective in Each and Every Tinnitus Variable Under Evaluation and In the Medium Run Responsiveness to Treatment Remained Stable In 75.8% Patients. Yes
Rojas-Roncancio, 2016 [58] Manganese and Lipoflavonoid Plus Lipoflavonoid Plus Unclear THQ, TPFQ 6 Months No No Significant Improvement in Both Groups No
Roland,
2016 [59]		 Sham or Active Treatment rTMS to TPJ Sham Rtms to TPJ Clear   2 or 4 Weeks No No Changes in Neural Connectivity Following Rtms Therapy. Results Suggest Instead That the TPJ May Not Be an Ideal Target for Tinnitus Treatment. No
Sahlsten,
2017 [72]		 rTMS Placebo Rtms Unclear THI, VAS 6 Months 80% Improvement for The VAS Scores (Intensity, Annoyance, Distress) And THI Scores Both in The Active Rtms Group and The Placebo Group. No
Sahlsten, 2019 [85] rTMS With and Without Neuronavigation for 2 Weeks In 2000 Hz With and Without Neurostimulation Unclear THI, Global Impression of Change 3 Months No No Significant Difference Between Groups, However Significant Improvement in Both No
Scherer,
2019 [86]		 TRT, including tinnitus specific counseling (TC) and sound-therapy (ST) Implemented with Ear- Level sound generators (SGS); Partial TRT, Including TC and Placebo SGS; Or Standard of Care (SoC) Placebo SGS Or Standard of Care (Soc) Clear Primary: TQ, Secondary: TFI, THI, VAS 18 Months 80.0% No Meaningful Differences Between TRT And Soc (Our Primary Comparison) Or Between Partial TRT And Soc Or TRT (Our Secondary Comparisons). No
Shekhawat, 2014 [42] Transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) Sham Stimulation Clear TFI, THI, THQ, MML 7 Months No No Significant Differences for Any of The Questionnaires; Decrease in MML For the RTMS Group No
Singh,
2016 [60]		 B12 Placebo Unclear Matching, TSI 1 Month No Improvement in Patients with B12 Insufficiency, Hence in A Very Small Sample No
Sönmez,
2013 [37]		 Ozone Betahistine Unclear THI, Loudness Scale 6 Months No No Differences Between Ozone and Betahistine, Both Showed Improvement Compared to Baseline Though Yes
Stein,
2016 [61]		 Fixed Notch-TMNMT Placebo (Moving Notch) Clear THQ, VAS 4 Months 90.0% Tinnitus Loudness and Other Measures of Tinnitus Distress Do Not Show Relevant Changes. No
Sziklai,
2011 [20]		 Pramipexole Placebo Clear THI 4 Weeks No No Cumulative Analysis. Greater Proportion of Patients Reporting Tinnitus Disappearance in The Interventional Group. Results Not Confirmed by Electrocochleography. Unclear
Taslimi,
2013 [38]		 Ondansedron Placebo Clear THI, TSI, VAS, HADS   No No Significant Differences Between Ondansedron And Placebo No
Tass,
2012 [31]		 CR Placebo   VAS, TQ 12 Weeks No Improvement Before and After Treatment and Also Compared to Placebo Yes
Teismann,
2014 [43]		 Anodal TDCS, Cathodal TDCS + TMNMT Sham Stimulation + TMNMT Unclear THQ, THI, TQ 31 Days No No Significant Modulating Effect of TDCS Polarity: Significant Main Effects or Interactions of TDCS Condition Were Neither Found in The Primary Outcome Measure nor In Any of The Secondary Outcome Measures (THI, TQ, Or Loudness VAS; No
Thabit,
2015 [50]		 rTMS RTMS Unclear THI, VAS 1 Month No Combination Treatment Significantly Better Yes
Theodoroff, 2017 [73] LEVO System with A Tinnitus-Matched Stimulus (TM Group) vs. LEVO System with A Noise Stimulus (NS Group; White Noise And/or Band Noise) vs. Marsona 1288 Sound Conditioner/Tinnitus Masker (Bedside Sound Generator Device; BSG Group). BSG And NS Groups, but Not in The Same Manner as A Placebo-Controlled Group Unclear TFI, NRS, And LM at 1 kHz 3 Months No Greater Average Improvement in Reactions to Tinnitus with TM or NS Devices Compared to The BSG Device. Yes
Tutar,
2020 [88]		 10 Sessions Of 30 Minutes in One Month Placebo Unclear THI, DASS 4 Weeks No Significant Improvement in Uni- And Bilateral Groups Compared to Placebo Yes
Tyler,
2017 [74]		 VNS Implant-Paired VNS Implant-Unpaired (Paired After 6 Weeks) Clear THI, TFI, THQ 1 Year No No Significant Differences for Any of The Outcome Measures No
Weise,
2016 [62]		 10-Week Guided Internet-Based Self-Help Program DF Unclear Primary: THI, Mini-TQ, Secondary: HADS 1 Year No ICBT Resulted to Significantly Better THI Scores Compared to Participation in An Online Forum Yes
Westin,
2011 [21]		 ACT, TRT Wait List Control Unclear Primary: THI, Secondary: ISI, QOLI, HADS, CGI-I 18 Months 80% ACT Is More Effective in Reducing Tinnitus Impact Than Tinnitus Retraining Therapy or Being on A Wait List. Yes
Wise,
2016 [63]		 Experimental Attention Training Game (“Terrain”) A Control Game (“Tetris”) Unclear TFI, Secondary: THI, Tinnitus Severity Numeric Scales 20 Days 92% TFI Scores Improved Following The 20-Day Use for the “Terrain” Program Compared with The Nonauditory “Tetris” Group. Yes
Yakunina,
2019 [87]		 HAs With WDRC, HAs With FT, Or HAs With LFT FL Techniques (LFT and FT) Group Clear Primary: THI, Secondary: VAS 6 Months 80.0% No Significant Differences Were Found Between Conventional Has And FL-Type Has in Terms of Tinnitus Relief Among Patients With HFHL. No
Zarenoe,
2016 [64]		 MI Group Received A Brief MI Program, Whereas Patients in The SP Group Underwent Conventional Hearing Aid Fitting. Conventional Hearing Aid Fitting Group Unclear THI, IOI-HA 3 Months No The MI Intervention Did Not Appear to Have Any Additional Effect on Hearing Aid Fitting Compared to Conventional Hearing Rehabilitation. No

Apart from intrinsic limitations and barriers, tinnitus literature also suffers from methodological insufficiencies which are common in other fields, as well. Median number of participants per RCT is as low as 54, whereas only 10 exceed 100 participants. Most of the studies (46 out of 73) did not provide power analysis; hence, the rest reported power over 80%. The same proportion of papers did not provide a clear, detailed, and reproducible description of their randomization procedure, a fact that clearly questions their qua-lity. Moreover, randomization procedure was found to be unclear in 46 of the studies (63.01%) under the sense, that relevant information provided was generic and not adequate for the procedure to be replicated.

Although out of the scope of this review, what needs to be underlined is that many of the RCTs concerning tinnitus are supported by pharmaceutical companies or hearing and tinnitus-related devices manufacturers. So, results must always be read with caution and extra consideration for potential biases or conflicts of interests.

2.6. Outcome Measures

Tinnitus is a condition affecting everyday life in many ways, causing a list of issues including, but not limited to annoyance, functional disturbances, tinnitus intrusiveness and acceptance, disability for certain actions and tasks like concentration, ability to ignore negative emotions, sense of control, malaise, and loathsomeness. Hall et al. (2019) have recently suggested proper outcome measures for each type of intervention. These recommendations could not have been applied to the body of the RCTs examined; however, lack of justification for the choice of a certain outcome measure is the rule [89].

Majority of studies (63 out of 73, 86.30%) use more than one outcome measures, a procedure that has been proposed to enable comparison across trials [13][90]. However, the use of multiple outcome measurements requirerequires the a priori definition of the primary outcome, which was the case only in 14 studies out of the 64. It is also interesting, that 34 of the RCTs use at least three outcome measures, which shows a relatively wide range of domains targeted and also increases the possibility of results ought to randomness.

2.7. Time Course

Relatively little is known about the course of tinnitus over time [6][91][92][93]. There are a lot of factors contributing to this. Tinnitus installation is often prolonged and there is a considerable proportion of patients that cannot clearly identify an exact date of tinnitus onset. Especially in the cases where tinnitus habituation has occurred, patients may not clearly recall or may underestimate both time of onset or severity of their tinnitus, when they are asked about it or when they are filling retrospectively a relevant questionnaire. A considerable proportion with total relapse might not even contact health services, and therefore never be recorded, which means that estimation of the course of tinnitus over time is in current studies at based assessed retrospectively by questionnaires, which are subject to recall bias as well as to suboptimal phrasing of the relevant questions in the self-filled questionnaires. Consequently, there is lack of reliable information about the actual incidence, the course and the profile of the patients who experience tinnitus for a short period of time and then stop experiencing it. On top of this, patient trajectories differ strongly across countries depending in the health system.

Tinnitus is usually dichotomized into acute and chronic; however, recent European guidelines have also included the sub-acute type (from 3 to 6 months), in order to reflect the transition from acute to chronic tinnitus [1]. However, all these definitions are arbitrary, and little is known about differences in the pathophysiology of acute and chronic tinnitus and the time when this transition occurs. It is remarkable that only two of the RCTs identified focused on acute tinnitus [51][75].

The majority of the studies (58 of 73) clearly defines a minimum time interval from tinnitus onset, however variability in time intervals is large. Eleven trials set as minimum duration 3 months and 22 the 6 months interval, whereas a wide range of smaller or larger intervals occur. This variance may be relevant for the tinnitus course, since a recent systematic review has indicated a statistically significant decrease in the impact of tinnitus over time, although clinical significance could not be interpreted due to heterogeneity [94]. This practically means that in the comparison between RCTs differences in the tinnitus duration might matter.

2.8. Trial Design and Results

As expected, there is a large heterogeneity among the RCTs included. About one third of the included studies examine the efficacy of pharmaceutical agents either as sy-stemic or as topical administration. Second most common topic is various types of TMS, whereas 10 focus on CBT either face to face or online, 5 on non-CBT psychological interventions, 7 on HAs (alone or in combination with motivational interview), and 8 on sound therapy. Finally, acupuncture and laser beam have also been evaluated as monotherapy for chronic tinnitus [26][28][35][44][52][54][67]. The variance of the interventions with respect to their intended mechanisms, targets and duration should have led to different trial designs in terms of outcome measures as well as follow up schedule. For instance, TMS is usually implemented in strict and well-defined time periods (typically one to two weeks), whereas CBT is an intervention lasting several weeks and should be finished before the effect can be evaluated. At the same time, HAs have a continuous and possibly long-lasting effect. This is not reflected in the design of the studies, since criteria in regards to tinnitus onset, follow up duration and outcome measures are more or less equally distributed in these sub-groups of RCTs.

It is noteworthy that two third of control groups use different types of methods in order to be non-interventional: placebo, sham devices or interventions, participants from the waiting list or usual care. Ideally, the recommendation is to use best available treatment instead of placebo, at least for pharmacological studies. This is probably not applicable in the tinnitus field, since universally acceptable treatment is pending [95]. Hence, majority of the remaining studies use as control arms active interventions of the same discipline (different TMS protocols, HA fitting parameters, stimuli used for sound therapies). Very few RCTs compare two totally independent interventions. This design should be considered in future studies, because on top of efficacy superiority, it could potentially identify profiles of patients who could be more prompt to one intervention compared to other.

Although evaluation of results was not within the core scopes of this review, it should be mentioned, that roughly one third of the RCTs concluded that the intervention tested was considered effective. RCTs targeting CBT and different types of sound therapy re-presented more than one third of the RCTs with a positive outcome, whereas their proportion in the whole body of RCTs was significantly lower (13.6% and 10.96%, respectively). All other types of interventions had at least one clinical trial with a positive result (superiority against the control intervention).

One important aspect is that with regards to several RCTs in which different active interventions were compared, it remains unclear whether the results differ from placebo. Even if there were significant within arm comparisons for all investigated interventions, one cannot unambiguously differentiate between spontaneous improvement and an effect of the investigated intervention.

Moreover, with very few exceptions, only statistical and not clinical significance was examined, and any minimum benefit considered as significant was set ad hoc.

References

  1. Cima, R.F.F.; Mazurek, B.; Haider, H.; Kikidis, D.; Lapira, A.; Noreña, A.; Hoare, D.J. A Multidisciplinary European Guideline for Tinnitus: Diagnostics, Assessment, and Treatment. HNO 2019, 67, 10–42.
  2. Cima, R.F.F. Bothersome Tinnitus. HNO 2018, 66, 369–374.
  3. Bhatt, J.M.; Lin, H.W.; Bhattacharyya, N. Tinnitus Epidemiology: Prevalence, Severity, Exposures And Treatment Patterns In The United States. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 142, 959–965.
  4. Hesse, G. Evidence and Evidence Gaps in Tinnitus Therapy. GMS Curr. Top. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2016, 15.
  5. Hoare, D.J.; Kowalkowski, V.L.; Kang, S.; Hall, D.A. Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Examining Tinnitus Management. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 1555–1564.
  6. Simoes, J.; Neff, P.; Schoisswohl, S.; Bulla, J.; Schecklmann, M.; Harrison, S.; Vesala, M.; Langguth, B.; Schlee, W. Toward Personalized Tinnitus Treatment: An Exploratory Study Based on Internet Crowdsensing. Front. Public Health 2019, 7.
  7. Arienti, C.; Armijo-Olivo, S.; Minozzi, S.; Lazzarini, S.G.; Patrini, M.; Negrini, S. 60 Methodological Issues in Rehabilitation Research: A Scoping Review. BMJ EBM 2019, 24, A35.
  8. Langguth, B.; Landgrebe, M.; Schlee, W.; Schecklmann, M.; Vielsmeier, V.; Steffens, T.; Staudinger, S.; Frick, H.; Frick, U. Different Patterns of Hearing Loss among Tinnitus Patients: A Latent Class Analysis of a Large Sample. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8.
  9. Elgoyhen, A.B.; Langguth, B.; De Ridder, D.; Vanneste, S. Tinnitus: Perspectives from Human Neuroimaging. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2015, 16, 632–642.
  10. Probst, T.; Pryss, R.C.; Langguth, B.; Rauschecker, J.P.; Schobel, J.; Reichert, M.; Spiliopoulou, M.; Schlee, W.; Zimmermann, J. Does Tinnitus Depend on Time-of-Day? An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study with the “TrackYourTinnitus” Application. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017, 9.
  11. Winfried, S.; Stefan, S.; Susanne, S.; Axel, S.; Astrid, L.; Berthold, L.; Martin, S.; Jorge, S.; Patrick, N.; Steven, M.; et al. Towards a unification of treatments and interventions for tinnitus patients: The EU research and innovation action UNITI. In Progress in Brain Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021.
  12. Hall, D.A.; Ray, J.; Watson, J.; Sharman, A.; Hutchison, J.; Harris, P.; Daniel, M.; Millar, B.; Large, C.H. A Balanced Randomised Placebo Controlled Blinded Phase IIa Multi-Centre Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of AUT00063 versus Placebo in Subjective Tinnitus: The QUIET-1 Trial. Hear. Res. 2019, 377, 153–166.
  13. Langguth, B.; Goodey, R.; Azevedo, A.; Bjorne, A.; Cacace, A.; Crocetti, A.; Del Bo, L.; De Ridder, D.; Diges, I.; Elbert, T.; et al. Consensus for Tinnitus Patient Assessment and Treatment Outcome Measurement: Tinnitus Research Initiative Meeting, Regensburg, July 2006. Prog. Brain Res. 2007, 166, 525–536.
  14. Koops, E.A.; Husain, F.T.; van Dijk, P. Profiling Intermittent Tinnitus: A Retrospective Review. Int. J. Audiol. 2019, 58, 434–440.
  15. Axelsson, A.; Ringdahl, A. Tinnitus—A Study of Its Prevalence and Characteristics. Br. J. Audiol. 1989, 23, 53–62.
  16. Degeest, S.; Corthals, P.; Dhooge, I.; Keppler, H. The Impact of Tinnitus Characteristics and Associated Variables on Tinnitus-Related Handicap. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2016, 130, 25–31.
  17. Anders, M.; Dvorakova, J.; Rathova, L.; Havrankova, P.; Pelcova, P.; Vaneckova, M.; Jech, R.; Holcat, M.; Seidl, Z.; Raboch, J. Efficacy of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized, Placebo Controlled Study. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 2010, 31, 238–249.
  18. Biesinger, E.; Kipman, U.; Schätz, S.; Langguth, B. Qigong for the Treatment of Tinnitus: A Prospectiverandomized Controlled Study. J. Psychosom. Res. 2010, 69, 299–304.
  19. Dehkordi, M.A.; Abolbashari, S.; Taheri, R.; Einolghozati, S. Efficacy of Gabapentin on Subjective Idiopathic Tinnitus: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Ear Nose Throat J. 2011, 90, 150–158.
  20. Sziklai, I.; Szilvássy, J.; Szilvássy, Z. Tinnitus Control by Dopamine Agonist Pramipexole in Presbycusis Patients: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Study. Laryngoscope 2011, 121, 888–893.
  21. Westin, V.Z.; Schulin, M.; Hesser, H.; Karlsson, M.; Noe, R.Z.; Olofsson, U.; Stalby, M.; Wisung, G.; Andersson, G. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy versus Tinnitus Retraining Therapy in the Treatment of Tinnitus: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Behav. Res. Ther. 2011, 49, 737–747.
  22. Cima, R.F.F.; Maes, I.H.; Joore, M.A.; Scheyen, D.J.W.M.; El Refaie, A.; Baguley, D.M.; Anteunis, L.J.C.; van Breukelen, G.J.P.; Vlaeyen, J.W.S. Specialised Treatment Based on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy versus Usual Care for Tinnitus: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet 2012, 379, 1951–1959.
  23. Han, S.-S.; Nam, E.-C.; Won, J.Y.; Lee, K.U.; Chun, W.; Choi, H.K.; Levine, R.A. Clonazepam Quiets Tinnitus: A Randomised Crossover Study with Ginkgo Biloba. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2012, 83, 821–827.
  24. Hesser, H.; Gustafsson, T.; Lundén, C.; Henrikson, O.; Fattahi, K.; Johnsson, E.; Zetterqvist Westin, V.; Carlbring, P.; Mäki-Torkko, E.; Kaldo, V.; et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Internet-Delivered Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in the Treatment of Tinnitus. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 80, 649–661.
  25. Hoare, D.J.; Kowalkowski, V.L.; Hall, D.A. Effects of Frequency Discrimination Training on Tinnitus: Results from Two Randomised Controlled Trials. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2012, 13, 543–559.
  26. Jeon, S.W.; Kim, K.S.; Nam, H.J. Long-Term Effect of Acupuncture for Treatment of Tinnitus: A Randomized, Patient- and Assessor-Blind, Sham-Acupuncture-Controlled, Pilot Trial. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2012, 18, 693–699.
  27. Kreuzer, P.M.; Goetz, M.; Holl, M.; Schecklmann, M.; Landgrebe, M.; Staudinger, S.; Langguth, B. Mindfulness-and Body-Psychotherapy-Based Group Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2012, 12, 235.
  28. Ngao, C.F.; Tan, T.S.; Narayanan, P.; Raman, R. The Effectiveness of Transmeatal Low-Power Laser Stimulation in Treating Tinnitus. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2014, 271, 975–980.
  29. Plewnia, C.; Vonthein, R.; Wasserka, B.; Arfeller, C.; Naumann, A.; Schraven, S.P.; Plontke, S.K. Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus with θ Burst Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurology 2012, 78, 1628–1634.
  30. Rocha, C.B.; Sanchez, T.G. Efficacy of Myofascial Trigger Point Deactivation for Tinnitus Control. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2012, 78, 21–26.
  31. Tass, P.A.; Adamchic, I.; Freund, H.-J.; von Stackelberg, T.; Hauptmann, C. Counteracting Tinnitus by Acoustic Coordinated Reset Neuromodulation. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 2012, 30, 137–159.
  32. Choi, S.J.; Lee, J.B.; Lim, H.J.; In, S.M.; Kim, J.-Y.; Bae, K.H.; Choung, Y.-H. Intratympanic Dexamethasone Injection for Refractory Tinnitus: Prospective Placebo-Controlled Study. Laryngoscope 2013, 123, 2817–2822.
  33. Coelho, C.; Witt, S.A.; Ji, H.; Hansen, M.R.; Gantz, B.; Tyler, R. Zinc to Treat Tinnitus in the Elderly: A Randomized Placebo Controlled Crossover Trial. Otol. Neurotol. 2013, 34, 1146–1154.
  34. Hoekstra, C.E.L.; Versnel, H.; Neggers, S.F.W.; Niesten, M.E.F.; van Zanten, G.A. Bilateral Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Auditory Cortex in Tinnitus Patients Is Not Effective: A Randomised Controlled Trial. Audiol. Neurootol. 2013, 18, 362–373.
  35. Mollasadeghi, A.; Mirmohammadi, S.J.; Mehrparvar, A.H.; Davari, M.H.; Shokouh, P.; Mostaghaci, M.; Baradaranfar, M.H.; Bahaloo, M. Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Management of Tinnitus Due to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013.
  36. Nyenhuis, N.; Zastrutzki, S.; Weise, C.; Jäger, B.; Kröner-Herwig, B. The Efficacy of Minimal Contact Interventions for Acute Tinnitus: A Randomised Controlled Study. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 2013, 42, 127–138.
  37. Sönmez, O.; Külahlı, I.; Vural, A.; Sahin, M.I.; Aydın, M. The Evaluation of Ozone and Betahistine in the Treatment of Tinnitus. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2013, 270, 1999–2006.
  38. Taslimi, S.; Vahidi, H.; Pourvaziri, A.; Modabbernia, A.; Fallah, A.Y.; Yazdani, N.; Taslimi, N.; Hosseini, M.; Zarandi, M.M. Ondansetron in Patients with Tinnitus: Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2013, 270, 1635–1641.
  39. Dos Santos, G.M.; Bento, R.F.; de Medeiros, I.R.T.; Oiticcica, J.; da Silva, E.C.; Penteado, S. The Influence of Sound Generator Associated With Conventional Amplification for Tinnitus Control: Randomized Blind Clinical Trial. Trends Hear. 2014, 18, 233121651454265.
  40. Hoare, D.J.; Van Labeke, N.; McCormack, A.; Sereda, M.; Smith, S.; Al Taher, H.; Kowalkowski, V.L.; Sharples, M.; Hall, D.A. Gameplay as a Source of Intrinsic Motivation in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Auditory Training for Tinnitus. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e107430.
  41. Jasper, K.; Weise, C.; Conrad, I.; Andersson, G.; Hiller, W.; Kleinstäuber, M. Internet-Based Guided Self-Help versus Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychother. Psychosom. 2014, 83, 234–246.
  42. Shekhawat, G.S.; Searchfield, G.D.; Stinear, C.M. Randomized Trial of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Hearing Aids for Tinnitus Management. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2014, 28, 410–419.
  43. Teismann, H.; Wollbrink, A.; Okamoto, H.; Schlaug, G.; Rudack, C.; Pantev, C. Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Tailor-Made Notched Music Training to Decrease Tinnitus-Related Distress—A Pilot Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89904.
  44. Dehkordi, M.A.; Einolghozati, S.; Ghasemi, S.M.; Abolbashari, S.; Meshkat, M.; Behzad, H. Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Cochlear Tinnitus: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Ear Nose Throat J. 2015, 94, 32–36.
  45. Bilici, S.; Yigit, O.; Taskin, U.; Gor, A.P.; Yilmaz, E.D. Medium-Term Results of Combined Treatment with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and Antidepressant Drug for Chronic Tinnitus. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015, 272, 337–343.
  46. Folmer, R.L.; Theodoroff, S.M.; Casiana, L.; Shi, Y.; Griest, S.; Vachhani, J. Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Treatment for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2015, 141, 716–722.
  47. Kreuzer, P.M.; Lehner, A.; Schlee, W.; Vielsmeier, V.; Schecklmann, M.; Poeppl, T.B.; Landgrebe, M.; Rupprecht, R.; Langguth, B. Combined RTMS Treatment Targeting the Anterior Cingulate and the Temporal Cortex for the Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18028.
  48. Malinvaud, D.; Londero, A.; Niarra, R.; Peignard, P.; Warusfel, O.; Viaud-Delmon, I.; Chatellier, G.; Bonfils, P. Auditory and Visual 3D Virtual Reality Therapy as a New Treatment for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Hear. Res. 2016, 333, 127–135.
  49. Pal, N.; Maire, R.; Stephan, M.A.; Herrmann, F.R.; Benninger, D.H. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Study. Brain Stimul. Basic Transl. Clin. Res. Neuromodulation 2015, 8, 1101–1107.
  50. Thabit, M.N.; Fouad, N.; Shahat, B.; Youssif, M. Combined Central and Peripheral Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Pilot Study. Neurorehabilit. Neural Repair 2015, 29, 224–233.
  51. Albu, S.; Nagy, A.; Doros, C.; Marceanu, L.; Cozma, S.; Musat, G.; Trabalzini, F. Treatment of Meniere’s Disease with Intratympanic Dexamethazone plus High Dosage of Betahistine. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2016, 37, 225–230.
  52. Doi, M.Y.; Tano, S.S.; Schultz, A.R.; Borges, R.; de Moraes Marchiori, L.L. Effectiveness of Acupuncture Therapy as Treatment for Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016, 82, 458–465.
  53. Henry, J.A.; Stewart, B.J.; Griest, S.; Kaelin, C.; Zaugg, T.L.; Carlson, K. Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Two Methods of Tinnitus Intervention to Two Control Conditions. Ear Hear. 2016, 37, e346–e359.
  54. Laureano, M.R.; Onishi, E.T.; Bressan, R.A.; Neto, P.B.; Castiglioni, M.L.V.; Batista, I.R.; Reis, M.A.; Garcia, M.V.; de Andrade, A.N.; Sanchez, M.L.; et al. The Effectiveness of Acupuncture as a Treatment for Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using (99m)Tc-ECD SPECT. Eur. Radiol. 2016, 26, 3234–3242.
  55. Lehner, A.; Schecklmann, M.; Greenlee, M.W.; Rupprecht, R.; Langguth, B. Triple-Site RTMS for the Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 22302.
  56. Li, S.-A.; Bao, L.; Chrostowski, M. Investigating the Effects of a Personalized, Spectrally Altered Music-Based Sound Therapy on Treating Tinnitus: A Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial. Audiol. Neurootol. 2016, 21, 296–304.
  57. Lim, H.W.; Kim, T.S.; Kang, W.S.; Song, C.I.; Baek, S.; Chung, J.W. Effect of a 4-Week Treatment with Cilostazol in Patients with Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized, Prospective, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Pilot Study. J. Int. Adv. Otol. 2016, 12, 170–176.
  58. Rojas-Roncancio, E.; Tyler, R.; Jun, H.-J.; Wang, T.-C.; Ji, H.; Coelho, C.; Witt, S.; Hansen, M.R.; Gantz, B.J. Manganese and Lipoflavonoid Plus® to Treat Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2016, 27, 661–668.
  59. Roland, L.T.; Peelle, J.E.; Kallogjeri, D.; Nicklaus, J.; Piccirillo, J.F. The Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation on Neural Connectivity in Tinnitus: A Randomized Trial. Laryngoscope 2016, 126, 1201–1206.
  60. Singh, C.; Kawatra, R.; Gupta, J.; Awasthi, V.; Dungana, H. Therapeutic Role of Vitamin B12 in Patients of Chronic Tinnitus: A Pilot Study. Noise Health 2016, 18, 93–97.
  61. Stein, A.; Wunderlich, R.; Lau, P.; Engell, A.; Wollbrink, A.; Shaykevich, A.; Kuhn, J.-T.; Holling, H.; Rudack, C.; Pantev, C. Clinical Trial on Tonal Tinnitus with Tailor-Made Notched Music Training. BMC Neurol. 2016, 16.
  62. Weise, C.; Kleinstäuber, M.; Andersson, G. Internet-Delivered Cognitive-Behavior Therapy for Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychosom. Med. 2016, 78, 501–510.
  63. Wise, K.; Kobayashi, K.; Magnusson, J.; Welch, D.; Searchfield, G.D. Randomized Controlled Trial of a Perceptual Training Game for Tinnitus Therapy. Games Health J. 2016, 5, 141–149.
  64. Zarenoe, R.; Söderlund, L.L.; Andersson, G.; Ledin, T. Motivational Interviewing as an Adjunct to Hearing Rehabilitation for Patients with Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 2016, 27, 669–676.
  65. Elzayat, S.; El-Sherif, H.; Hegazy, H.; Gabr, T.; El-Tahan, A.-R. Tinnitus: Evaluation of Intratympanic Injection of Combined Lidocaine and Corticosteroids. ORL J. Otorhinolaryngol. Relat. Spec. 2016, 78, 159–166.
  66. Kallogjeri, D.; Piccirillo, J.F.; Spitznagel, E.; Hale, S.; Nicklaus, J.E.; Hardin, F.M.; Shimony, J.S.; Coalson, R.S.; Schlaggar, B.L. Cognitive Training for Adults With Bothersome Tinnitus. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2017, 143, 443–451.
  67. Kim, B.H.; Kim, K.; Nam, H.J. A Comparative Study on the Effects of Systemic Manual Acupuncture, Periauricular Electroacupuncture, and Digital Electroacupuncture to Treat Tinnitus: A Randomized, Paralleled, Open-Labeled Exploratory Trial. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17.
  68. Landgrebe, M.; Hajak, G.; Wolf, S.; Padberg, F.; Klupp, P.; Fallgatter, A.J.; Polak, T.; Höppner, J.; Haker, R.; Cordes, J.; et al. 1-Hz RTMS in the Treatment of Tinnitus: A Sham-Controlled, Randomized Multicenter Trial. Brain Stimul. 2017, 10, 1112–1120.
  69. McKenna, L.; Marks, E.M.; Hallsworth, C.A.; Schaette, R. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy as a Treatment for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychother. Psychosom. 2017, 86, 351–361.
  70. Arif, M.; Sadlier, M.; Rajenderkumar, D.; James, J.; Tahir, T. A Randomised Controlled Study of Mindfulness Meditation versus Relaxation Therapy in the Management of Tinnitus. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2017, 131, 501–507.
  71. Beukes, E.W.; Baguley, D.M.; Allen, P.M.; Manchaiah, V.; Andersson, G. Guided Internet-Based versus Face-to-Face Clinical Care in the Management of Tinnitus: Study Protocol for a Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial. Trials 2017, 18.
  72. Sahlsten, H.; Virtanen, J.; Joutsa, J.; Niinivirta-Joutsa, K.; Löyttyniemi, E.; Johansson, R.; Paavola, J.; Taiminen, T.; Sjösten, N.; Salonen, J.; et al. Electric Field-Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. Int. J. Audiol. 2017, 56, 692–700.
  73. Theodoroff, S.M.; Griest, S.E.; Folmer, R.L. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Tinnitus: Using the Tinnitus Functional Index to Predict Benefit in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Trials 2017, 18.
  74. Tyler, R.; Cacace, A.; Stocking, C.; Tarver, B.; Engineer, N.; Martin, J.; Deshpande, A.; Stecker, N.; Pereira, M.; Kilgard, M.; et al. Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired with Tones for the Treatment of Tinnitus: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Pilot Study in Humans. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7.
  75. Lee, H.-J.; Kim, M.-B.; Yoo, S.-Y.; Park, S.N.; Nam, E.-C.; Moon, I.S.; Lee, H.-K. Clinical Effect of Intratympanic Dexamethasone Injection in Acute Unilateral Tinnitus: A Prospective, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study. Laryngoscope 2018, 128, 184–188.
  76. Beukes, E.W.; Andersson, G.; Allen, P.M.; Manchaiah, V.; Baguley, D.M. Effectiveness of Guided Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy vs Face-to-Face Clinical Care for Treatment of Tinnitus. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018, 144, 1126–1133.
  77. Abtahi, H.; Okhovvat, A.; Heidari, S.; Gharagazarloo, A.; Mirdamadi, M.; Nilforoush, M.H.; Ghazavi, H. Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Short-Term and Long-Term Treatment of Chronic Tinnitus. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2018, 39, 94–96.
  78. El Beaino, M.; McCaskey, M.K.; Eter, E. Sulodexide Monotherapy in Chronic Idiopathic Subjective Tinnitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018, 158, 1107–1112.
  79. Hong, H.Y.; Karadaghy, O.; Kallogjeri, D.; Brown, F.T.; Yee, B.; Piccirillo, J.F.; Nagele, P. Effect of Nitrous Oxide as a Treatment for Subjective, Idiopathic, Nonpulsatile Bothersome Tinnitus: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018, 144, 781–787.
  80. Godbehere, J.; Sandhu, J.; Evans, A.; Twigg, V.; Scivill, I.; Ray, J.; Barker, A. Treatment of Tinnitus Using Theta Burst Based Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation—A Single Blinded Randomized Control Trial. Otol. Neurotol. 2019, 40, S38.
  81. Li, J.; Jin, J.; Xi, S.; Zhu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Huang, M.; He, C. Clinical Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2019, 40, 253–256.
  82. Noh, T.-S.; Kyong, J.-S.; Park, M.K.; Lee, J.H.; Oh, S.H.; Chung, C.K.; Kim, J.S.; Suh, M.-W. Treatment Outcome of Auditory and Frontal Dual-Site RTMS in Tinnitus Patients and Changes in Magnetoencephalographic Functional Connectivity after RTMS: Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Audiol. Neurootol. 2019, 24, 293–298.
  83. Procházková, K.; Šejna, I.; Skutil, J.; Hahn, A. Ginkgo Biloba Extract EGb 761® versus Pentoxifylline in Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 40, 1335–1341.
  84. Radunz, C.L.; Okuyama, C.E.; Branco-Barreiro, F.C.A.; Pereira, R.M.S.; Diniz, S.N. Clinical Randomized Trial Study of Hearing Aids Effectiveness in Association with Ginkgo Biloba Extract (EGb 761) on Tinnitus Improvement. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2019.
  85. Sahlsten, H.; Holm, A.; Rauhala, E.; Takala, M.; Löyttyniemi, E.; Karukivi, M.; Nikkilä, J.; Ylitalo, K.; Paavola, J.; Johansson, R.; et al. Neuronavigated Versus Non-Navigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Tinnitus: A Randomized Study. Trends Hear. 2019, 23, 2331216518822198.
  86. Scherer, R.W.; Formby, C. Effect of Tinnitus Retraining Therapy vs Standard of Care on Tinnitus-Related Quality of Life. JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2019.
  87. Yakunina, N.; Lee, W.H.; Ryu, Y.-J.; Nam, E.-C. Tinnitus Suppression Effect of Hearing Aids in Patients With High-Frequency Hearing Loss: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial. Otol. Neurotol. 2019, 40, 865–871.
  88. Tutar, B.; Atar, S.; Berkiten, G.; Üstün, O.; Kumral, T.L.; Uyar, Y. The Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on Chronic Subjective Tinnitus. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2020, 41, 102326.
  89. Hall, D.A.; Hibbert, A.; Smith, H.; Haider, H.F.; Londero, A.; Mazurek, B.; Fackrell, K. One Size Does Not Fit All: Developing Common Standards for Outcomes in Early-Phase Clinical Trials of Sound-, Psychology-, and Pharmacology-Based Interventions for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus in Adults. Trends Hear. 2019, 23.
  90. Landgrebe, M.; Azevedo, A.; Baguley, D.; Bauer, C.; Cacace, A.; Coelho, C.; Dornhoffer, J.; Figueiredo, R.; Flor, H.; Hajak, G.; et al. Methodological Aspects of Clinical Trials in Tinnitus: A Proposal for an International Standard. J. Psychosom. Res. 2012, 73, 112–121.
  91. Lan, L.; Li, J.; Chen, Y.; Chen, W.; Li, W.; Zhao, F.; Chen, G.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; et al. Alterations of Brain Activity and Functional Connectivity in Transition from Acute to Chronic Tinnitus. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2020.
  92. Schlee, W.; Hølleland, S.; Bulla, J.; Simoes, J.; Neff, P.; Schoisswohl, S.; Woelflick, S.; Schecklmann, M.; Schiller, A.; Staudinger, S.; et al. The Effect of Environmental Stressors on Tinnitus: A Prospective Longitudinal Study on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2756.
  93. Vielsmeier, V.; Santiago Stiel, R.; Kwok, P.; Langguth, B.; Schecklmann, M. From Acute to Chronic Tinnitus: Pilot Data on Predictors and Progression. Front. Neurol. 2020, 11.
  94. Phillips, J.S.; McFerran, D.J.; Hall, D.A.; Hoare, D.J. The Natural History of Subjective Tinnitus in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of No-Intervention Periods in Controlled Trials. Laryngoscope 2018, 128, 217–227.
  95. Castro, M. Placebo versus Best-Available-Therapy Control Group in Clinical Trials for Pharmacologic Therapies. Proc. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2007, 4, 570–573.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Audiology & Speech-language Pathology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Eleftheria Iliadou
View Times: 550
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 06 May 2021
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback