ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2026
Effectiveness of Over-The-Counter Treatments for Tinnitus Symptom Relief: A Systematic Review.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To review the effectiveness of over-the-counter (OTC) treatments in reducing tinnitus symptom severity as measured by the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) in randomized controlled trials. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP through March 2025. A systematic review of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 390 adults was conducted. Eligible studies evaluated oral OTC treatments with pre- and posttreatment THI scores. Because of substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity and incomplete reporting of variance data required for pooled effect estimation, we performed a qualitative systematic review rather than a meta-analysis. Results: Nine RCTs comprising 390 participants met inclusion criteria. Investigated agents included melatonin, Conclusion: Current RCT evidence shows inconsistent and limited findings, and no firm conclusions can be drawn about whether any OTC therapy provides symptomatic benefit. Future trials should use standardized outcome measures, transparent reporting, and adequately powered designs to clarify which, if any, OTC treatments provide clinically meaningful benefit. Level of Evidence: 1 (Systematic review of RCTs with low-moderate heterogeneity).
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.