Cited by 46Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

Sex Differences in the Response to Different Tinnitus Treatment

Open access
Van der Wal, Annemarie, Luyten, Tine, Cardon, Emilie, Jacquemin, Laure, Vanderveken, Olivier M., Topsakal, Vedat, Van de Heyning, Paul, De Hertogh, Willem +4 more·2020·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Introduction: Tinnitus is a complex symptom requiring a thorough multidisciplinary assessment to construct an individual’s tinnitus profile. The Antwerp University Hospital hosts a tertiary tinnitus clinic providing intensive, multidisciplinary tinnitus care in the form of combinational psychological treatment with either Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT)/Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) or TRT/Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing therapy (EMDR), high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (HDtDCS), and physical therapy treatment (in cases of somatic influence of the neck or the temporomandibular area). Several factors may contribute to therapy effect of which the role of gender has recently gained more interest. As such, the current manuscript explores gender differences in the outcome of different tinnitus treatments. Methods: Data on treatment outcome of four distinct tinnitus treatments (1. HDtDCS; 2. Orofacial physical therapy; 3. Combination TRT + CBT and 4. Combination TRT + EMDR) were pooled and compared. Treatment outcome was assessed via the Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI). Participants completed the TFI at baseline, immediately after treatment and after 9 weeks (± 3 weeks) follow-up. To explore the effect of gender on different treatment outcomes, a linear mixed model was designed including Time point, Gender and Therapy Group as fixed factors as well as all interactions between these factors. Results: TFI scores improved significantly over time regardless of therapy group (p < 0.0001). A mean TFI decrease of at least 13 points was obtained by all participants except by those in the HD-tDCS. Significant interactions between Gender and Time point were identified in all groups except for the TRT +EMDR group. Female subjects improved more extensively than males in the HD-tDCS (p = 0.0009) and orofacial therapy group (p = 0.0299). Contrarily, in the TRT +CBT group, male participants showed a significant improvement whereas the mean TFI scores of female subjects remained on baseline levels (p = 0.0138). Conclusion: Our data suggest that male and female tinnitus patients seem to react differently to different therapy options. We strongly encourage further prospective studies to discern the relevance of gender in future guidance towards therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnins.2020.00422

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van der Wal, A., Luyten, T., Cardon, E., Jacquemin, L., Vanderveken, O. M., Topsakal, V., Van de Heyning, P., De Hertogh, W., Van Looveren, N., Van Rompaey, V., Michiels, S., & Gilles, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • HOGENT University of Applied Sciences and Arts (BE)
Corresponding author
  • Michiels, Sarah
  • Gilles, Annick
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2020-05-12
Volume
14
Pages
422-422
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3024031409
Cited by
46
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Noise Effects and Management
Keywords
tinnitus, sex differences, gender differences in treatment response, tinnitus retraining therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, EMDR, transcranial direct current stimulation, Tinnitus Functional Index, treatment outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review