Suppr超能文献

系统评价和随机对照试验的荟萃分析,旨在研究耳鸣管理。

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials examining tinnitus management.

机构信息

National Institute for Health Research National Biomedical Research Unit in Hearing, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Laryngoscope. 2011 Jul;121(7):1555-64. doi: 10.1002/lary.21825. Epub 2011 Jun 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the existing level of evidence for tinnitus management strategies identified in the UK Department of Health's Good Practice Guideline.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature and meta-analyses.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Web of Science, and EMBASE (earliest to August 2010), supplemented by hand searches in October 2010. Only randomized controlled trials that used validated questionnaire measures of symptoms (i.e., measures of tinnitus distress, anxiety, depression) were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria, most of which provide moderate levels of evidence for the effects they reported. Levels of evidence were generally limited by the lack of blinding, lack of power calculations, and incomplete data reporting in these studies. Only studies examining cognitive behavioral therapy were numerous and similar enough to perform meta-analysis, from which the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (moderate effect size) appears to be reasonably established. Antidepressants were the only drug class to show any evidence of potential benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of most interventions for tinnitus benefit remains to be demonstrated conclusively. In particular, high-level assessment of the benefit derived from those interventions most commonly used in practice, namely hearing aids, maskers, and tinnitus retraining therapy needs to be performed.

摘要

目的/假设:评估英国卫生部《良好实践指南》中确定的耳鸣管理策略的现有证据水平。

研究设计

对同行评议文献和荟萃分析进行系统评价。

方法

在 PubMed、Cambridge Scientific Abstracts、Web of Science 和 EMBASE(最早至 2010 年 8 月)进行检索,并于 2010 年 10 月进行手工检索。仅纳入使用症状验证问卷测量(即耳鸣困扰、焦虑、抑郁测量)的随机对照试验。

结果

28 项随机对照试验符合我们的纳入标准,其中大多数报告的结果提供了中等水平的证据。证据水平通常受到这些研究中缺乏盲法、缺乏功效计算和数据报告不完整的限制。只有检查认知行为疗法的研究数量多且足够相似,可以进行荟萃分析,从中可以看出认知行为疗法(中等效应大小)的疗效似乎已经得到合理确立。抗抑郁药是唯一显示出潜在益处的药物类别。

结论

大多数耳鸣干预措施的疗效仍有待确凿证明。特别是需要对那些在实践中最常用的干预措施(即助听器、掩蔽器和耳鸣再训练疗法)所带来的益处进行高级别评估。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/86eb/3477633/d5ad54d63ef1/lary0121-1555-f1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验