↓ Skip to main content

Zinc supplementation for tinnitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Zinc supplementation for tinnitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009832.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osmar C Person, Maria ES Puga, Edina MK da Silva, Maria R Torloni

Abstract

Tinnitus is the perception of sound without external acoustic stimuli. Patients with severe tinnitus may have physical and psychological complaints and their tinnitus can cause deterioration in their quality of life. At present no specific therapy for tinnitus has been found to be satisfactory in all patients. In recent decades, a number of reports have suggested that oral zinc supplementation may be effective in the management of tinnitus. Since zinc has a role in cochlear physiology and in the synapses of the auditory system, there is a plausible mechanism of action for this treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral zinc supplementation in the management of patients with tinnitus. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 6); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 July 2016. Randomised controlled trials comparing zinc supplementation versus placebo in adults (18 years and over) with tinnitus. We used the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcome measures were improvement in tinnitus severity and disability, measured by a validated tinnitus-specific questionnaire, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, change in socioeconomic impact associated with work, change in anxiety and depression disorders, change in psychoacoustic parameters, change in tinnitus loudness, change in overall severity of tinnitus and change in thresholds on pure tone audiometry. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. We included three trials involving a total of 209 participants. The studies were at moderate to high risk of bias. All included studies had differences in participant selection criteria, length of follow-up and outcome measurement, precluding a meta-analysis. The participants were all adults over 18 years with subjective tinnitus, but one study conducted in 2013 (n = 109) included only elderly patients. Improvement in tinnitus severity and disabilityOnly the study in elderly patients used a validated instrument (Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire) for this primary outcome. The authors of this cross-over study did not report the results of the two phases separately and found no significant differences in the proportion of patients reporting tinnitus improvement at four months of follow-up: 5% (5/93) versus 2% (2/94) in the zinc and placebo groups, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 2.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 12.70; very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported any significant adverse effects. Secondary outcomesFor the secondary outcome change in tinnitus loudness, one study reported no significant difference between the zinc and placebo groups after eight weeks: mean difference in tinnitus loudness -9.71 dB (95% CI -25.53 to 6.11; very low-quality evidence). Another study also measured tinnitus loudness but used a 0- to 100-point scale. The authors of this second study reported no significant difference between the zinc and placebo groups after four months: mean difference in tinnitus loudness rating scores 0.50 (95% CI -5.08 to 6.08; very low-quality evidence).Two studies used unvalidated instruments to assess tinnitus severity. One (with 50 participants) reported the severity of tinnitus using a non-validated scale (0 to 7 points) and found no significant difference in subjective tinnitus scores between the zinc and placebo groups at the end of eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.41, 95% CI -2.97 to 0.15; very low-quality evidence). A third trial (n = 50) also evaluated the improvement of tinnitus using a non-validated instrument (a 0 to 10 scale: 10 = severe and unbearable tinnitus). In this study, after eight weeks there was no difference in the proportion of patients with improvement in their tinnitus, 8.7% (2/23) treated with zinc versus 8% (2/25) of those who received a placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.17 to 7.10, very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported any of our other secondary outcomes (quality of life, change in socioeconomic impact associated with work, change in anxiety and depression disorders, change in psychoacoustic parameters or change in thresholds on pure tone audiometry). We found no evidence that the use of oral zinc supplementation improves symptoms in adults with tinnitus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 30%
Unspecified 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 35%
Unspecified 19 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Psychology 11 11%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Other 17 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,186,898
of 13,092,437 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,890
of 10,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,937
of 373,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,092,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.