Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39989657›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2025

A scoping review of the spatial perception of tinnitus and a guideline for the minimum reporting of tinnitus location.

Grant D Searchfield, Philip J Sanders, Amit Barde

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Grant D SearchfieldSchool of Population Health, Faculty of medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7303-2159
Philip J SandersSchool of Population Health, Faculty of medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2511-3135
Amit BardeSchool of Population Health, Faculty of medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8414-5087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tinnitus spatial localisation is an essential attribute of tinnitus perception and how it is separated from other ongoing neural activity. A scoping review was undertaken to determine how tinnitus localisation is reported, the role of the perceived spatial location of tinnitus on neurophysiology and if sound presented spatially can change tinnitus perception. Following reading of the full-text articles and including articles from reference lists, 46 articles were included for review. Six themes emerged from the results. 1. Where tinnitus was localised. 2. The effects of tinnitus on localisation. 3. The mechanisms underpinning tinnitus spatial location. 4. Masking. 5. Auditory training. 6. Multisensory training and virtual reality (VR). Tinnitus is much more complex than the often-used description of 'ringing in the ears'. Tinnitus can be heard anywhere in and around the head. Spatial sound presentation and perceptual training approaches may disrupt spatial selective attention to tinnitus and appear as changes in some of the neural networks involved in sound localisation. Where tinnitus is heard is a critical aspect of its perception, but its report, even in studies purporting to study localisation, is too general. A matrix for standardised minimum reporting of tinnitus location is recommended.

Indexed as

guidelinelateralisationlocalisationmechanismsspatialtherapyTinnitustreatment

Identifiers

PMID39989657
PMCPMC11841106

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.