Low-Level Laser Therapy and Photobiomodulation for Tinnitus and Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tinnitus and sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) are prevalent otologic disorders that can severely affect quality of life. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and photobiomodulation (PBM) have been proposed as potential treatments aimed at enhancing cochlear microcirculation and cellular metabolism; however, their clinical efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of LLLT and PBM in improving tinnitus severity and hearing outcomes among patients with tinnitus and SSNHL. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and pre-post studies in humans, published in English, that investigated LLLT or PBM for these conditions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black 28-item checklist. Nine clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Most demonstrated short-term reductions in tinnitus severity and handicap immediately following treatment, with several reporting superiority over placebo or control groups. However, these benefits often diminished after three to six months in longitudinal follow-ups. Audiometric improvements were mainly observed in participants with moderate hearing loss, whereas minimal changes occurred in severe cases. Across all studies, LLLT and PBM were reported to be safe and well-tolerated. Overall, LLLT and PBM appear to offer meaningful short-term relief of tinnitus symptoms and modest improvements in hearing thresholds for selected patients, although their long-term efficacy remains uncertain. Variability in treatment parameters and outcome measures underscores the need for standardized protocols and high-quality randomized trials to support evidence-based clinical recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".