MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983502078 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000002472

Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Cognitive and/or Behavioral Therapies (CBT) for Tinnitus

2019· review· en· W2983502078 on OpenAlexaff
Evie C. Landry, Xochitl Citlalli Romo Sandoval, Calla N. Simeone, Glynnis Tidball, Jane Lea, Brian D. Westerberg

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTinnitusMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEStrictly standardized mean differenceAnxietyPsycINFOCognitive behavioral therapyConfidence intervalData extractionPsychological interventionPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.040
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.317
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.125 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207