ReviewBrain sciences2023
Effects of Physical Interventions on Subjective Tinnitus, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Brain sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemodynamic Changes Following Acupuncture and Moxibustion in Patients with Subjective Tinnitus: An Acceleration Photoplethysmography and Pulsed-Wave Doppler Ultrasound Study.Audiology research · 2026Article
- Somatosensory Intervention Targeting Temporomandibular Disorders and Awake Bruxism Positively Impacts Subjective Tinnitus.Audiology research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasingly, patients suffering from subjective tinnitus seek help from physical therapists. Numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effect of physical interventions commonly used in physical therapy practice on subjective tinnitus. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse the effects of physical interventions on tinnitus loudness, tinnitus annoyance, and scores on the Tinnitus Handicap Index (THI). Four databases were searched from inception up to March 2022. A total of 39 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and 23 studies were appropriate for meta-analyses. Risk of bias assessments were also performed. Interventions analysed in at least five studies were summarised, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), laser therapy, and acupuncture. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used, and effect sizes were expressed as Hedge's standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95%CI's. The quality of three-quarters of the studies was limited due to insufficient allocation concealment, lack of adequate blinding, and small sample sizes. Large, pooled effects sizes were found for acupuncture (SMD: 1.34; 95%CI: 0.79, 1.88) and TENS (SMD: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.48, 1.87) on THI as well as for acupuncture on tinnitus loudness (VAS Loudness (SMD: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.33, 1.36) and tinnitus annoyance (SMD: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.00, 2.35). There is some evidence that physical interventions (TENS and acupuncture, but not laser therapy) may be effective for tinnitus. However, the lack of high-quality studies and the risk of bias in many studies prohibits stronger conclusions.
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.