Trial reportCoDAS2026
Tinnitus disorder and musical auditory training: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in CoDAS, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of Musical Auditory Training (MAT) on auditory system neuroplasticity and on tinnitus perception in adults.
methodsA randomized double-blind clinical trial, approved by the Research Ethics Committee. Twenty adults with tinnitus complaints for at least six months, intensity greater than four points on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), normal bilateral hearing thresholds, and preserved neural synchrony at the brainstem level were included. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups: Control Group (CG, n=10), submitted to passive stimulation with audiovisual material without tasks, and Study Group (SG, n=10), submitted to MAT. Both groups underwent eight sessions, twice a week, over a four-week period. Assessments included verbal Long-Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials (LLAEP), to investigate neuroplasticity, as well as the VAS (volume and discomfort) and the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), to measure symptom perception.
resultsBoth groups showed improvement in tinnitus perception after the intervention. However, a differentiated analysis revealed that the CG presented restricted changes, with improvement only in the duration of the P3 component of the LLAEP. In contrast, the SG showed broader changes, including significant alterations in both amplitude and duration of P3, suggesting greater neural recruitment associated with auditory processing. In addition, only the SG demonstrated consistent reductions in tinnitus volume and discomfort, as well as in the impact on quality of life, as reflected in THI scores.
conclusionAfter four weeks, MAT proved to be superior to passive stimulation, promoting positive changes in auditory neuroplasticity, a greater reduction in tinnitus intensity and annoyance, and a significant improvement in participants' quality of life.
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.