Efficacy of pharmacologic treatment in tinnitus patients without specific or treatable origin: A network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although tinnitus has a prevalence between 20 and 42.8%, the currently recommended management for tinnitus, such as tinnitus support and psychologic therapies, are relatively time-consuming and expensive. Several new pharmacologic treatments designed for tinnitus patients without specific origin had been developed but their efficacy remains unclear. METHODS: , 2021. All network meta-analytic procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. We calculated the effect size of outcomes with different rating scales with standardized mean difference. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020177742. FINDINGS: Overall, 36 RCTs were included with 2,761 participants. The main results revealed that pharmacologic interventions with brain-acting effect (for example, amitriptyline, acamprosate, and gabapentin) and those with anti-inflammation/anti-oxidant effect (for example, intra-tympanic dexamethasone injection plus oral melatonin) were associated with superior improvement in tinnitus severity and response rate compared to placebo/control. Oral amitriptyline were associated with the highest improvement in tinnitus severity and the fourth highest response rate. None of the investigated interventions was associated with different changes in quality of life compared to placebo/control. All the investigated treatments were associated with similar drop-out rate to placebo/control. INTERPRETATION: The current NMA suggests a potential role for treatments with brain-acting effect (for example, amitriptyline, acamprosate, and gabapentin) or anti-inflammation/anti-oxidant effect (for example, intra-tympanic dexamethasone injection plus oral melatonin) as the preferable effective treatments for tinnitus without specific or treatable origin. FUNDING: none.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".