ArticleBrain sciences2022
Personalization of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Subjective Tinnitus.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improvement of Chronic Tinnitus Following Personalized, Parcel-guided Accelerated rTMS: Feasibility in a Retrospective Case Series.Brain topography · 2025Article
- Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2024Review
- Monitoring Changes in TMS-Evoked EEG and EMG Activity During 1 Hz rTMS of the Healthy Motor Cortex.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Personalized Neuromodulation: A Novel Strategy for Improving Tinnitus Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Activate & fire: a feasibility study in combining acoustic stimulation and continuous theta burst stimulation in chronic tinnitus.BMC neurology · 2023Article
- Brain Stimulation and Neuroplasticity-Series II.Brain sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersonalization of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for tinnitus might be capable to overcome the heterogeneity of treatment responses. The assessment of loudness changes after short rTMS protocols in test sessions has been proposed as a strategy to identify the best protocol for the daily treatment application. However, the therapeutic advantages of this approach are currently not clear. The present study was designed to further investigate the feasibility and clinical efficacy of personalized rTMS as compared to a standardized rTMS protocol used for tinnitus.
methodsRTMS personalization was conducted via test sessions and reliable, sham-superior responses respectively short-term reductions in tinnitus loudness following active rTMS protocols (1, 10, 20 Hz, each 200 pulses) applied over the left and right temporal cortex. Twenty pulses at a frequency of 0.1 Hz served as a control condition (sham). In case of a response, patients were randomly allocated to ten treatment sessions of either personalized rTMS (2000 pulses with the site and frequency producing the most pronounced loudness reduction during test sessions) or standard rTMS (1 Hz, 2000 pulses left temporal cortex). Those participants who did not show a response during the test sessions received the standard protocol as well.
resultsThe study was terminated prematurely after 22 patients (instead of 50 planned) as the number of test session responders was much lower than expected (27% instead of 50%). Statistical evaluation of changes in metric tinnitus variables and treatment responses indicated only numerical, but not statistical superiority for personalized rTMS compared to standard treatment.
conclusionsThe current stage of investigation does not allow for a clear conclusion about the therapeutic advantages of personalized rTMS for tinnitus based on test session responses. The feasibility of this approach is primarily limited by the low test session response rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.