ArticleScientific reports2023
Acoustic and optoacoustic stimulations in auditory brainstem response test in salicylate induced tinnitus.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- In-ear EEG wearables for brain activity assessment and cognitive rehabilitation: the emerging role of multimodal embedded intelligence.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Transcriptional profile changes caused by noise-induced tinnitus in the cochlear nucleus and inferior colliculus of the rat.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Photobiomodulation therapy in improvement of harmful neural plasticity in sodium salicylate-induced tinnitus.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a common debilitating disorder worldwide, tinnitus requires objective assessment. In the auditory brainstem response (ABR) test, auditory potentials can be evoked by acoustic or optoacoustic (induced by laser light) stimulations. In order to use the ABR test in the objective assessment of tinnitus, in this study, acoustic ABR (aABR) and optoacoustic ABR (oABR) were compared in the control and tinnitus groups to determine the changes caused by sodium salicylate (SS)-induced tinnitus in rat. In both aABR and oABR, wave II was the most prominent waveform, and the amplitude of wave II evoked by oABR was significantly higher than that of aABR. Brainstem transmission time (BTT), which represents the time required for a neural stimulation to progress from the auditory nerve ending to the inferior colliculus, was significantly shorter in oABR. In the tinnitus group, there was a significant increase in the threshold of both ABRs and a significant decrease in the amplitude of wave II only in the oABR. Based on our findings, the ABR test has the potential to be used in the assessment of SS-induced tinnitus, but oABR has the advantages of producing more prominent waveforms and significantly reducing the amplitude of wave II in tinnitus.
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.