MyMedR

Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Gap-induced inhibition of the post-auricular muscle response in humans and guinea pigs

Wilson CA, Berger JI, de Boer J, Sereda M, Palmer AR, Hall DA, et al.

Hear Res, 2019 03 15;374:13-23.
PMID: 30685571 DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.01.009

A common method for measuring changes in temporal processing sensitivity in both humans and animals makes use of GaP-induced Inhibition of the Acoustic Startle (GPIAS). It is also the basis of a common method for detecting tinnitus in rodents. However, the link to tinnitus has not been properly established because GPIAS has not yet been used to objectively demonstrate tinnitus in humans. In guinea pigs, the Preyer (ear flick) myogenic reflex is an established method for measuring the acoustic startle for the GPIAS test, while in humans, it is the eye-blink reflex. Yet, humans have a vestigial remnant of the Preyer reflex, which can be detected by measuring skin surface potentials associated with the Post-Auricular Muscle Response (PAMR). A similar electrical potential can be measured in guinea pigs and we aimed to show that the PAMR could be used to demonstrate GPIAS in both species. In guinea pigs, we compare the GPIAS measured using the pinna movement of the Preyer reflex and the electrical potential of the PAMR to demonstrate that the two are at least equivalent. In humans, we establish for the first time that the PAMR provides a reliable way of measuring GPIAS that is a pure acoustic alternative to the multimodal eye-blink reflex. Further exploratory tests showed that while eye gaze position influenced the size of the PAMR response, it did not change the degree of GPIAS. Our findings confirm that the PAMR is a sensitive method for measuring GPIAS and suggest that it may allow direct comparison of temporal processing between humans and animals and may provide a basis for an objective test of tinnitus.
Fulltext Establishing a Core Domain Set for early-phase clinical trials of electrical stimulation interventions for tinnitus in adults: protocol for an online Delphi study

Labree B, Hoare DJ, Fackrell K, Hall DA, Gascoyne LE, Sereda M

Trials, 2022 Dec 21;23(1):1039.
PMID: 36539777 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-07020-2

BACKGROUND: Tinnitus is the awareness of a sound in the ear or head in the absence of an external source. It affects around 10-15% of people and current treatment options are limited. Experimental treatments include various forms of electrical stimulation of the brain. Currently, there is no consensus on the outcomes that should be measured when investigating the efficacy of this type of intervention for tinnitus. This study seeks to address this by establishing a Core Domain Set: a common standard of what specific tinnitus-related complaints are critical and important to assess in all clinical trials of electrical stimulation-based interventions for tinnitus.
METHODS: A two-round online survey will be conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a Core Domain Set. Participants will belong to one of two stakeholder groups: healthcare users with lived experience of tinnitus, and professionals with relevant clinical, commercial, or research experience.
DISCUSSION: This study will establish a Core Domain Set for the evaluation of electrical stimulation-based interventions for tinnitus via an e-Delphi study. The resulting Core Domain Set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials of electrical stimulation interventions for tinnitus. Standardisation will facilitate comparability of research findings.
A process for prioritising systematic reviews in tinnitus

Sereda M, McFerran D, Axon E, Baguley DM, Hall DA, Potgieter I, et al.

Int J Audiol, 2020 08;59(8):640-646.
PMID: 32134348 DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2020.1733677

Objective: To develop an innovative prioritisation process to identify topics for new or updated systematic reviews of tinnitus research.Design: A two-stage prioritisation process was devised. First, a scoping review assessed the amount of randomized controlled trial-level evidence available. This enabled development of selection criteria for future reviews, aided the design of template protocol and suggested the scale of work that would be required to conduct these reviews. Second, using the pre-defined primary and secondary criteria, interventions were prioritised for systematic review.Study sample: Searches identified 1080 records. After removal of duplicates and out of scope works, 437 records remained for full data charting.Results: The process was tested, using subjective tinnitus as the clinical condition and using Cochrane as the systematic review platform. The criteria produced by this process identified three high priority reviews: (1) Sound therapy using amplification devices and/or sound generators; (2) Betahistine and (3) Cognitive behaviour therapy. Further secondary priorities were: (4) Gingko biloba, (5) Anxiolytics, (6) Hypnotics, (7) Antiepileptics and (8) Neuromodulation.Conclusions: A process was developed which successfully identified priority areas for Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for subjective tinnitus. This technique could easily be transferred to other conditions and other types of systematic reviews.
Fulltext Standardised profiling for tinnitus research: The European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire (ESIT-SQ)

Genitsaridi E, Partyka M, Gallus S, Lopez-Escamez JA, Schecklmann M, Mielczarek M, et al.

Hear Res, 2019 06;377:353-359.
PMID: 30871820 DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.02.017

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity of tinnitus is substantial. Its numerous pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical manifestations have hampered fundamental and treatment research significantly. A decade ago, the Tinnitus Research Initiative introduced the Tinnitus Sample Case History Questionnaire, a case history instrument for standardised collection of information about the characteristics of the tinnitus patient. Since then, a number of studies have been published which characterise individuals and groups using data collected with this questionnaire. However, its use has been restricted to a clinical setting and to the evaluation of people with tinnitus only. In addition, it is limited in the ability to capture relevant comorbidities and evaluate their temporal relationship with tinnitus.
METHOD: Here we present a new case history instrument which is comprehensive in scope and can be answered by people with and without tinnitus alike. This 'European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire' (ESIT-SQ) was developed with specific attention to questions about potential risk factors for tinnitus (including demographics, lifestyle, general medical and otological histories), and tinnitus characteristics (including perceptual characteristics, modulating factors, and associations with co-existing conditions). It was first developed in English, then translated into Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish, thus having broad applicability and supporting international collaboration.
CONCLUSIONS: With respect to better understanding tinnitus profiles, we anticipate the ESIT-SQ to be a starting point for comprehensive multi-variate analyses of tinnitus. Data collected with the ESIT-SQ can allow establishment of patterns that distinguish tinnitus from non-tinnitus, and definition of common sets of tinnitus characteristics which might be indicated by the presence of otological or comorbid systemic diseases for which tinnitus is a known symptom.