ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Imaging Evaluation of Pulsatile Tinnitus.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Aggregate published data on the imaging of pulsatile tinnitus as a step toward building a framework for an evidence-based approach to diagnostic imaging for this symptom. Materials & Methods: A systematic review was performed. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched on December 1, 2021 for English-language articles on diagnostic imaging of pulsatile tinnitus. Articles that involved non-standard imaging techniques and those that focused on management of pulsatile tinnitus were excluded. Extracted data included: number of males and females; signs, symptoms, and physical examination findings with associated patient counts; imaging findings; count of patients with imaging-identified cause of pulsatile tinnitus; reported associated interventions and outcomes. Results: 41 articles were included with a total of 2,633 reported patients. 10 studies were prospective. MRA appears to be capable of identifying many of the same pathologies traditionally diagnosed with DSA. Few head-to-head comparisons were performed. In head-to-head comparisons of MRI and MRA, MRA was often able to identify more pathology. There was no clear relationship identified between specific symptoms and the imaging modality chosen, indicating that the imaging evaluation of pulsatile tinnitus is likely sensitive to the preferences of the evaluating provider. Conclusion: There is limited evidence to inform best practices for the initial imaging evaluation of pulsatile tinnitus and preference-sensitive provider decisions will continue to guide the pulsatile tinnitus workup. We encourage prospective studies with multimodality imaging comparisons to build evidence that would support the development of more effective, efficient, and equitable protocols and pathways for the imaging evaluation of pulsatile 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.