Suppr超能文献

物理干预对主观性耳鸣的影响:一项系统评价与Meta分析

Effects of Physical Interventions on Subjective Tinnitus, a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Bousema Eric J, Koops Elouise A, van Dijk Pim, Dijkstra Pieter U

机构信息

Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, 9712 CP Groningen, The Netherlands.

Fysiotherapie Sittard Oost, 6137 RX Sittard, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Brain Sci. 2023 Jan 29;13(2):226. doi: 10.3390/brainsci13020226.

Abstract

Increasingly, patients suffering from subjective tinnitus seek help from physical therapists. Numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the effect of physical interventions commonly used in physical therapy practice on subjective tinnitus. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse the effects of physical interventions on tinnitus loudness, tinnitus annoyance, and scores on the Tinnitus Handicap Index (THI). Four databases were searched from inception up to March 2022. A total of 39 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and 23 studies were appropriate for meta-analyses. Risk of bias assessments were also performed. Interventions analysed in at least five studies were summarised, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), laser therapy, and acupuncture. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used, and effect sizes were expressed as Hedge's standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95%CI's. The quality of three-quarters of the studies was limited due to insufficient allocation concealment, lack of adequate blinding, and small sample sizes. Large, pooled effects sizes were found for acupuncture (SMD: 1.34; 95%CI: 0.79, 1.88) and TENS (SMD: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.48, 1.87) on THI as well as for acupuncture on tinnitus loudness (VAS Loudness (SMD: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.33, 1.36) and tinnitus annoyance (SMD: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.00, 2.35). There is some evidence that physical interventions (TENS and acupuncture, but not laser therapy) may be effective for tinnitus. However, the lack of high-quality studies and the risk of bias in many studies prohibits stronger conclusions.

摘要

越来越多患有主观性耳鸣的患者向物理治疗师寻求帮助。众多随机对照试验(RCT)研究了物理治疗实践中常用的物理干预措施对主观性耳鸣的影响。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在分析物理干预措施对耳鸣响度、耳鸣烦恼程度以及耳鸣障碍指数(THI)得分的影响。检索了四个数据库,时间跨度从建库至2022年3月。系统评价共纳入39项RCT,其中23项研究适合进行荟萃分析。同时还进行了偏倚风险评估。总结了至少在五项研究中分析过的干预措施,包括经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)、激光疗法和针灸。使用随机效应荟萃分析模型,效应大小以Hedge标准化平均差(SMD)及95%置信区间表示。由于分配隐藏不足、缺乏充分的盲法以及样本量小,四分之三的研究质量有限。在THI方面,针灸(SMD:1.34;95%CI:0.79,1.88)和TENS(SMD:1.17;95%CI:0.48,1.87)以及在耳鸣响度(视觉模拟量表响度(SMD:0.84;95%CI:0.33,1.36))和耳鸣烦恼程度(SMD:1.18;95%CI:0.00,2.35)方面,针灸均发现有较大的合并效应大小。有证据表明物理干预措施(TENS和针灸,但不包括激光疗法)可能对耳鸣有效。然而,缺乏高质量研究以及许多研究存在偏倚风险,阻碍了得出更强有力的结论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7607/9954385/1d395b28fbed/brainsci-13-00226-g0A1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验