Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36761182›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2023

Comparison between two self-guided tinnitus pitch matching methods.

Jose L Santacruz, Emile de Kleine, Pim van Dijk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jose L SantacruzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Emile de KleineDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Pim van DijkDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Tinnitus pitch matching is a procedure by which the frequency of an external sound is manipulated in such a way that its pitch matches the one of the tinnitus. The correct measure of the tinnitus pitch plays an important role in the effectiveness of any sound-based therapies. To date, this assessment is difficult due to the subjective nature of tinnitus. Some of the existing pitch matching methods present a challenge for both patients and clinicians, and require multiple adjustments of frequency and loudness, which becomes increasingly difficult in case of coexisting hearing loss. In this paper, we present the comparison in terms of reliability between two self-guided pitch matching methods: the method of adjustment (MOA) and the multiple-choice method (MCM). Methods: 20 participants with chronic tinnitus and hearing loss underwent the two assessments in two different sessions, 1 week apart. Measures of intraclass correlation (ICC) and difference in octaves (OD) within-method and within-session were obtained. Results: Both methods presented good reliability, and the obtained values of ICC and OD suggested that both methods might measure a different aspect of tinnitus. Discussion: Our results suggest that a multiple-choice method (MCM) for tinnitus pitch matching is as reliable in a clinical population as more conventional methods.

Indexed as

hearing lossmatchingpitchself-guidedtinnitus

Identifiers

PMID36761182
PMCPMC9906993
OpenAlexW4317937187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.