Dataset Information

Association of Central Noninvasive Brain Stimulation Interventions With Efficacy and Safety in Tinnitus Management: A Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Tinnitus has a prevalence of 10% to 25% and is frequently associated with numerous complications, such as neuropsychiatric disease. Traditional treatments have failed to meet the needs of patients with tinnitus. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) can focally modify cortical functioning and has been proposed as a strategy for reducing tinnitus severity. However, the results have been inconclusive.

Objective

To evaluate the association between different central NIBS therapies and efficacy and acceptability for treatment of tinnitus.

Data sources

ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August 4, 2019. No language restriction was applied. Manual searches were performed for potentially eligible articles selected from the reference lists of review articles and pairwise meta-analyses.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the central NIBS method used in patients with unilateral or bilateral tinnitus were included in the current network meta-analysis. The central NIBS method was compared with sham, waiting list, or active controls. Studies that were not clinical trials or RCTs and did not report the outcome of interest were excluded.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two authors independently screened the studies, extracted the relevant information, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies. In cases of discrepancy, a third author became involved. If manuscript data were not available, the corresponding authors or coauthors were approached to obtain the original data. This network meta-analysis was based on the frequentist model.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was change in the severity of tinnitus. Secondary outcomes were changes in quality of life and the response rate related to the NIBS method in patients with tinnitus.

Results

Overall, 32 unique RCTs were included with 1458 unique participants (mean female proportion, 34.4% [range, 0%-81.2%]; mean age, 49.6 [range, 40.0-62.8] years; median age, 49.8 [interquartile range, 48.1-52.4] years). The results of the network meta-analysis revealed that cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex combined with transcranial random noise stimulation over the bilateral auditory cortex was associated with the greatest improvement in tinnitus severity (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.89; 95% CI, -3.00 to -0.78) and quality of life (SMD, -1.24; 95% CI, -2.02 to -0.45) compared with the controls. Improvement in tinnitus severity ranked more favorably for continuous theta-burst stimulation (cTBS) over both auditory cortices (SMD, -0.79; 95% CI = -1.57 to -0.01) than cTBS over only the left auditory cortex (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.87 to 0.28), compared with controls. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation with priming had a superior beneficial association with tinnitus severity compared with the strategies without priming. None of the investigated NIBS types had a significantly different dropout rate compared with that of the control group.

Conclusions and relevance

This network meta-analysis suggests a potential role of NIBS interventions in tinnitus management. Future large-scale RCTs focusing on longer follow-up and different priming procedure NIBS are warranted to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Chen JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7349076 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDysphagia is a common sequelae after stroke. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) is a tool that has been used in the rehabilitation process to modify cortical excitability and improve dysphagia.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effect of NIBS on dysphagia after stroke and compare the effects of two different NIBS.MethodsRandomized controlled trials about the effect of NIBS on dysphagia after stroke were retrieved from databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM, from inception to June 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A statistical analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.3 and ADDIS 1.16.8. The effect size was evaluated by using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsUltimately, 18 studies involving 738 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that NIBS could improve the dysphagia outcome and severity scale (DOSS) score (standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.44, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.08, P < 0.05) and the water swallow test score (SMD = 6.23, 95% CI 5.44 to 7.03, P < 0.05). NIBS could reduce the standardized swallowing assessment (SSA) score (SMD = -1.04, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.58, P < 0.05), the penetration-aspiration scale (PAS) score (SMD = -0.85, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.36, P < 0.05), and the functional dysphagia scale score (SMD = -1.05, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.62, P < 0.05). Network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the DOSS score is rTMS (P = 0.52) > tDCS (P = 0.48), the best probabilistic ranking of the SSA score is rTMS (P = 0.72) > tDCS (P = 0.28), and the best probabilistic ranking of the PAS score is rTMS (P = 0.68) > tDCS (P = 0.32).ConclusionExisting evidence showed that NIBS could improve swallowing dysfunction and reduce the occurrence of aspiration after stroke, and that rTMS is better than tDCS. Limited by the number of included studies, more large-sample, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality clinical randomized controlled trials are still needed in the future to further confirm the results of this research.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral pioneering studies investigated deep brain stimulation (DBS) in treatment-refractory anorexia nervosa (AN) patients, but overall effects remain yet unclear. Aim of this study was to obtain estimates of efficacy of DBS in AN-patients using meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched three electronic databases until 1st of November 2021, using terms related to DBS and AN. We included trials that investigated the clinical effects of DBS in AN-patients. We obtained data including psychiatric comorbidities, medication use, DBS target, and study duration. Primary outcome was Body Mass Index (BMI), secondary outcome was quality of life, and the severity of psychiatric symptoms, including eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive, depressive, and anxiety symptoms. We assessed the risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool.ResultsFour studies were included for meta-analysis, with a total of 56 patients with treatment-refractory AN. Follow-up ranged from 6-24 months. Random effects meta-analysis showed a significant increase in BMI following DBS, with a large effect size (Hedges's g = 1 ∙ 13; 95% CI = 0 ∙ 80 to 1 ∙ 46; Z-value = 6 ∙ 75; P < 0 ∙ 001), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0 ∙ 00, P = 0 ∙ 901). Random effects meta-analysis also showed a significant increase in quality of life (Hedges's g = 0 ∙ 86; 95% CI = 0 ∙ 44 to 1 ∙ 28; Z-value = 4 ∙ 01, P < 0 ∙ 001). Furthermore, DBS decreased the severity of psychiatric symptoms (Hedges's g = 0 ∙ 89; 95% CI = 0 ∙ 57 to 1 ∙ 21; Z-value = 5 ∙ 47; P < 0 ∙ 001, I2 = 4 ∙ 29, P = 0 ∙ 371).DiscussionIn this first meta-analysis, DBS showed statistically large beneficial effects on weight restoration, quality of life, and reduction of psychiatric symptoms in patients with treatment-refractory AN. These outcomes call for more extensive naturalistic studies to determine the clinical relevance for functional recovery. This study is preregistered in PROSPERO,CRD42022295712.