Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24622858›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2014

Underlying mechanisms of tinnitus: review and clinical implications.

James A Henry, Larry E Roberts, Donald M Caspary, Sarah M Theodoroff, Richard J Salvi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

130 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 258 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James A HenryVA RR&D National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research (NCRAR), VA Medical Center, Portland, OR; Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Larry E RobertsDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Donald M CasparyPharmacology Department, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL.
Sarah M TheodoroffVA RR&D National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research (NCRAR), VA Medical Center, Portland, OR; Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Richard J SalviCenter for Hearing and Deafness, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
McMaster University · CA

Funding

CODING IN AUDITORY NEURONS: EFFECTS OF AMINO ACIDSR01DC000151 · NIDCD · SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCH OF MED · PI CASPARY, DONALD M. · 1989 to 2024
$7.1M
The Glycine Receptor in a Rat Tinnitus Model: A Possible Therapeutic TargetR01DC008532 · NIDCD · SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SCH OF MED · PI CASPARY, DONALD M. · 2007 to 2011
$1.5M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000151NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008532RRD VA I50 RX002361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study of tinnitus mechanisms has increased tenfold in the last decade. The common denominator for all of these studies is the goal of elucidating the underlying neural mechanisms of tinnitus with the ultimate purpose of finding a cure. While these basic science findings may not be immediately applicable to the clinician who works directly with patients to assist them in managing their reactions to tinnitus, a clear understanding of these findings is needed to develop the most effective procedures for alleviating tinnitus. PURPOSE: The goal of this review is to provide audiologists and other health-care professionals with a basic understanding of the neurophysiological changes in the auditory system likely to be responsible for tinnitus.

resultsIt is increasingly clear that tinnitus is a pathology involving neuroplastic changes in central auditory structures that take place when the brain is deprived of its normal input by pathology in the cochlea. Cochlear pathology is not always expressed in the audiogram but may be detected by more sensitive measures. Neural changes can occur at the level of synapses between inner hair cells and the auditory nerve and within multiple levels of the central auditory pathway. Long-term maintenance of tinnitus is likely a function of a complex network of structures involving central auditory and nonauditory systems.

conclusionsPatients often have expectations that a treatment exists to cure their tinnitus. They should be made aware that research is increasing to discover such a cure and that their reactions to tinnitus can be mitigated through the use of evidence-based behavioral interventions.

Indexed as

Neuronal PlasticityAnimalsAuditory CortexAuditory PerceptionCochlear DiseasesCochlear NucleusDiagnostic Techniques, NeurologicalDisease Models, AnimalGeniculate BodiesHearing LossHumansHyperacusisInferior ColliculiMagnetic Resonance ImagingNoisePositron-Emission Tomography

Identifiers

PMID24622858
PMCPMC5063499
OpenAlexW2002372485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.