Efficacy of sound therapy interventions for tinnitus management: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:Tinnitus is a common otological symptom and can be debilitating. Sound therapy has increased in popularity due to its potential for increased efficacy and fewer and milder side effects, but the available evidence is limited by the lack of randomized controlled trials comparing different sound therapies for tinnitus. Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a useful tool to compare multiple treatments when there is limited or no direct evidence available. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of different sound therapies for tinnitus.Methods and analysis:A literature search was conducted to identify articles in EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and Wanfang and Weipu from inception to April 1, 2021. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Tinnitus Questionnaire, and effective rate were used to assess perceived tinnitus suppression after treatment. We used Review Manager 5.4 for the standard meta-analysis; R 4.0.4 and Stata 15.1 were used for the NMA and the publication bias and sensitivity analyses.Results:The effect estimates of the direct comparisons (when available) were very similar to those of the NMA. Overall, sound stimulation alone performed better than medication alone, educational consultation alone, and no treatment. Combination therapy, such as sound stimulation plus educational consultation and sound stimulation plus drug therapy, yielded significantly better outcomes with regard to the alleviation of tinnitus than individual treatments.Conclusion:This is the first NMA to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different sound therapies for the management of tinnitus. It may help inform the selection of sound therapy and the development of guidelines in clinical practice. Future studies of sound therapy with larger sample sizes involving multiple medical centers are needed to improve the current evidence.