Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28951023›Full record

SynthesisHearing research2017

A methodological assessment of studies that use voxel-based morphometry to study neural changes in tinnitus patients.

Nicholas Scott-Wittenborn, Omar A Karadaghy, Jay F Piccirillo, Jonathan E Peelle

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Hearing research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. No reliable gray matter changes in essential tremor.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Momentary Analysis of Tinnitus: Considering the Patient.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

4 authors.

Nicholas Scott-WittenbornDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Omar A KaradaghyDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Jay F PiccirilloDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Jonathan E PeelleDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: jpeelle@wustl.edu.

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesTL1TR000449 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000449
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe scientific understanding of tinnitus and its etiology has transitioned from thinking of tinnitus as solely a peripheral auditory problem to an increasing awareness that cortical networks may play a critical role in tinnitus percept or bother. With this change, studies that seek to use structural brain imaging techniques to better characterize tinnitus patients have become more common. These studies include using voxel-based morphometry (VBM) to determine if there are differences in regional gray matter volume in individuals who suffer from tinnitus and those who do not. However, studies using VBM in patients with tinnitus have produced inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results.

objectiveThis paper is a systematic review of all of the studies to date that have used VBM to study regional gray matter volume in people with tinnitus, and explores ways in which methodological differences in these studies may account for their heterogeneous results. We also aim to provide guidance on how to conduct future studies using VBM to produce more reproducible results to further our understanding of disease processes such as tinnitus.

methodsStudies about tinnitus and VBM were searched for using PubMed and Embase. These returned 15 and 25 results respectively. Of these, nine met the study criteria and were included for review. An additional 5 studies were identified in the literature as pertinent to the topic at hand and were added to the review, for a total of 13 studies.

resultsThere was significant heterogeneity among the studies in several areas, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, software programs, and statistical analysis. We were not able to find publicly shared data or code for any study. DISCUSSION: The differences in study design, software analysis, and statistical methodology make direct comparisons between the different studies difficult. Especially problematic are the differences in the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study, and the statistical design of the studies, both of which could radically alter findings. Thus, heterogeneity has complicated efforts to explore the etiology of tinnitus using structural MRI.

conclusionThere is a pressing need to standardize the use of VBM when evaluating tinnitus patients. While some heterogeneity is expected given the rapid advances in the field, more can be done to ensure that there is internal validity between studies.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionHearingMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdultAgedBrain MappingFemaleGray MatterHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsTinnitusGray matterMagnetic resonance imagingTinnitusVoxel-based morphometry

Identifiers

PMID28951023
PMCPMC5675806

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.