Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Cognitive and/or Behavioral Therapies (CBT) for Tinnitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive and/or behavioral therapies in improving health-related quality of life (HRQOL), depression, and anxiety associated with tinnitus. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Registry were used to identify English studies from database inception until February 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cognitive and/or behavioral therapies to one another or to waitlist controls for the treatment of tinnitus were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Quality and risk were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool respectively. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pairwise meta-analysis (12 RCTs: 1,144 patients) compared psychological interventions to waitlist controls. Outcomes were measured using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). I and subgroup analyses were used to assess heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis (NMA) (19 RCTS: 1,543 patients) compared psychological therapies head-to-head. Treatment effects were presented by network diagrams, interval plots, and ranking diagrams indicating SMDs with 95% CI. Direct and indirect results were further assessed by inconsistency plots. CONCLUSIONS: Results are consistent with previously published guidelines indicating that CBT is an effective therapy for tinnitus. While guided self-administered forms of CBT had larger effect sizes (SMD: 3.44; 95% CI: -0.022, 7.09; I: 99%) on tinnitus HRQOL, only face-to-face CBT was shown to make statistically significant improvements (SMD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.53, 0.97; I: 0%). Guided self-administered CBT had the highest likelihood of being ranked first in improving tinnitus HRQOL (75%), depression (83%), and anxiety (87%), though statistically insignificant. This NMA is the first of its kind in this therapeutic area and provides new insights on the effects of different forms of cognitive and/or behavioral therapies for tinnitus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".