No abstract

Introduction: Tinnitus is a complex symptom requiring a thorough multidisciplinary assessment to construct an individual's tinnitus profile. The Antwerp University Hospital hosts a tertiary tinnitus clinic providing intensive, multidisciplinary tinnitus care in the form of combinational psychological treatment with either Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT)/Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or TRT/eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR), high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HD-tDCS), and physical therapy treatment (in cases of somatic influence of the neck or the temporomandibular area). Several factors may contribute to therapy effect of which the role of gender has recently gained more interest. As such, the current manuscript explores gender differences in the outcome of different tinnitus treatments.Methods: Data on treatment outcome of four distinct tinnitus treatments (1. HD-tDCS; 2. orofacial physical therapy; 3. combination TRT + CBT; and 4. combination TRT + EMDR) were pooled and compared. Treatment outcome was assessed via the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI). Participants completed the TFI at baseline, immediately after treatment and after 9 weeks (±3 weeks) follow-up. To explore the effect of gender on different treatment outcomes, a linear mixed model was designed including Time point, Gender, and Therapy Group as fixed factors as well as all interactions between these factors.Results: TFI scores improved significantly over time regardless of therapy group (p < 0.0001). A mean TFI decrease of at least 13 points was obtained by all participants except by those in the HD-tDCS. Significant interactions between Gender and Time point were identified in all groups except for the TRT +EMDR group. Female subjects improved more extensively than males in the HD-tDCS (p = 0.0009) and orofacial therapy group (p = 0.0299). Contrarily, in the TRT +CBT group, male participants showed a significant improvement whereas the mean TFI scores of female subjects remained on baseline levels (p = 0.0138).

Subjective tinnitus, the perception of sound in the absence of any sound source, is routinely assessed using questionnaires. The subjective nature of these tools hampers objective evaluation of tinnitus presence, severity and treatment effects. Late auditory evoked potentials (LAEPs) might be considered as a potential biomarker for assessing tinnitus complaints. Using a multivariate meta-analytic model including data from twenty-one studies, we determined the LAEP components differing systematically between tinnitus patients and controls. Results from this model indicate that amplitude of the P300 component is lower in tinnitus patients (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.83, p < 0.01), while latency of this component is abnormally prolonged in this population (SMD = 0.97, p < 0.01). No other investigated LAEP components were found to differ between tinnitus and non-tinnitus subjects. Additional sensitivity analyses regarding differences in experimental conditions confirmed the robustness of these results. Differences in age and hearing levels between the two experimental groups might have a considerable impact on LAEP outcomes and should be carefully considered in future studies. Although we established consistent differences in the P300 component between tinnitus patients and controls, we could not identify any evidence that this component might covary with tinnitus severity. We conclude that out of several commonly assessed LAEP components, only the P300 can be considered as a potential biomarker for subjective tinnitus, although more research is needed to determine its relationship with subjective tinnitus measures. Future trials investigating experimental tinnitus therapies should consider including P300 measurements in the evaluation of treatment effect.

Background: Tinnitus can be influenced by changes in somatosensory afference from the cervical spine or temporomandibular area, then called somatosensory or somatic tinnitus (ST). In 2018, a new set of diagnostic criteria for ST was agreed upon by a large group of ST experts. Currently, however, it still requires extensive and specific expertise to diagnose ST correctly. The next step in the development of easily applicable diagnostic criteria is to assess the diagnostic value of each individual criterion. Objectives:The aim of this study was, therefore, to further investigate the diagnostic value of these criteria, validate them empirically, and identify their sensitivity and specificity.Methods: An online survey, questioning the presence of 12 diagnostic criteria for ST in a convenience sample of participants with tinnitus, was launched on the online forum Tinnitus Talk, managed by Tinnitus Hub. Participants were divided into three groups: a group with no somatic influence, a group with some somatic influence and a group with large somatic influence on their tinnitus. Chi-square tests were used to calculate differences between these groups. Afterward, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and pre-and posttest probabilities were calculated for each ST diagnostic criterion. For this analysis, all patients with some and large somatic influence were compared as one group to the group with no somatic influence. Results:In total, 8221 participants filled out the online survey. As expected, the diagnostic criteria for ST are more prevalent in the groups with somatic influence, but the criterium of tinnitus modulation also often occurs in the group with no somatic influence. The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of both tinnitus and pain complaints have the highest positive LR (6.29 and 10.72, respectively), next to the influence of certain postures on the tinnitus (+LR: 6.04). To rule out ST, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles are most suited, as they decrease the posttest probability to 18% and 19%, respectively. Conclusion:The simultaneous onset or increase and decrease of tinnitus and neck or jaw pain and the influence of certain postures are most suited to use as a single criterion for identifying patients with a somatic influence on their tinnitus. On the other hand, the absence of neck pain or tension in the neck extensor muscles is valid criterion to rule out a somatic influence. Additional analysis is needed to identify clusters of symptoms and criteria to further aid ST diagnosis.