SynthesisBMJ open2025
Pharmacotherapy options for the management of subjective tinnitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Randomized controlled trial of prednisone in treating acute subjective tinnitus patients with normal pure-tone thresholds.iScience · 2025Article
- Efficacy differences and predictors of personalized mixed acoustic therapy in chronic tinnitus patients with and without hearing loss.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
objectivesThis study aims to compare the outcomes of different pharmacotherapies for subjective tinnitus patients using a comprehensive network meta-analysis.
designSystematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL Complete databases were searched from inception until 6 March 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacotherapy treatment effects for subjective tinnitus patients were included with tinnitus severity as the primary outcome, and annoyance and tinnitus loudness as secondary outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently retrieved and screened full articles using a standardised and prepiloted Excel form. Network meta-analysis was conducted with heterogeneity, study risk of bias (ROB), risk of publication bias and certainty of evidence examined using I
resultsSixty full-text RCTs from 21 countries were included in the analysis with 22% low ROB, 58% some concerns and 20% high ROB. The heterogeneity parameter I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis found that antioxidant supplementation, such as Ginkgo biloba, and vitamins and gamma-aminobutyric acid agonists, represented by acamprosate, could be promising treatments for subjective tinnitus. Further trials with rigorous design and larger sample sizes are necessary to supplement the current evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INPLASY202480066.
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.