Tinnitus Clarified — Corrections

Correction: Sleep Apnea and Its Link to Hearing Loss and Tinnitus

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article dated the study behind its hearing-impairment figure to 2022 and said it found people with sleep apnoea had a 21% higher likelihood of hearing impairment, in the body and an FAQ answer. The study was published in 2020, and it did not diagnose sleep apnoea: it estimated it from a screening questionnaire. Previously: A 2022 observational study of nearly 7,000 older adults in Europe found people with sleep apnea had a 21% higher likelihood of measurable hearing impairment than those without it. … A 2022 observational study of nearly 7,000 older adults found people with sleep apnoea had a 21% higher likelihood of measurable hearing impairment. Now: The Paris Prospective Study 3, published in 2020, tested the hearing of 6,797 adults aged 50 to 75 and screened them for obstructive sleep apnea with a questionnaire (the Berlin questionnaire) rather than a sleep study. Those whose answers pointed to sleep apnea had 21% higher odds of measurable hearing impairment (odds ratio 1.21, 95% CI 1.01–1.44) — a modest association, with a lower bound close to no effect. … In a 2020 French study of 6,797 adults aged 50 to 75, those whose questionnaire answers pointed to likely obstructive sleep apnoea had 21% higher odds of measurable hearing impairment. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The page gave no source for the figure. It comes from Lisan, van Sloten et al., 2020, in Clinical Otolaryngology: the Paris Prospective Study 3, which tested the hearing of 6,797 people aged 50 to 75 by audiometry, estimated obstructive sleep apnoea with the Berlin questionnaire, and found 1.21 times the odds of hearing impairment (95% CI 1.01 to 1.44) in those the questionnaire flagged. The page now cites the paper, gives its year and says how sleep apnoea was measured. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/sleep-apnea-and-tinnitus

Correction: Ear Infection (Otitis Media) and Tinnitus: How Strong Is the Link?

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said chronic suppurative otitis media accounted for close to half, 49.6%, of the middle-ear disease cases linked to tinnitus in the study it cites. In that study 49.6% is its share of the tinnitus patients across all the ear disorders listed, inner-ear conditions included; of the 796 patients with tinnitus and middle-ear disease, 299 had it, 37.6%. Previously: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) — the long-term, discharge-producing form — accounted for close to half (49.6%) of all middle ear disease cases linked to tinnitus specifically. Now: Most of the otitis media cases among patients with tinnitus were chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) — the long-term, discharge-producing form — and CSOM was the one ear disorder in the study in which tinnitus was significantly linked to more severe hearing loss. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. In the full text of Manche, Madhavi et al., 2016, 49.6% is one of a set of percentages, alongside presbycusis at 16.6% and Menière's disease at 3.3%, that each work out as a share of roughly 600 patients with tinnitus across all the ear disorders the study lists, inner-ear ones included. The study's first table counts 796 patients with tinnitus and middle-ear disease, and its second lists 299 of them with chronic suppurative otitis media: 37.6%, not close to half. The tables do support two other points, now on the page: CSOM made up 299 of the 365 otitis media cases with tinnitus, and it was the only ear disorder in which tinnitus was significantly associated with hearing loss above 40 dB (odds ratio 1.76). The same kind of base error in this article's 60.9% figure is corrected in a separate entry of the same date. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/otitis-media-and-tinnitus

Correction: Beta-Blockers and Tinnitus: Which Ones Are Implicated

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a broader analysis of drug-related tinnitus reports found full recovery in only about 65% of cases, in the body and an FAQ answer. In the study the figure comes from, 65.4% is the share of reports recorded as recovered with or without lasting effects, so it is not a rate of full recovery. Previously: Separately, a broader analysis of drug-related tinnitus reports found full recovery occurred in only about 65% of cases overall — meaning while beta-blocker-associated tinnitus often resolves, a meaningful minority of reported cases did not fully resolve even after the reaction was identified. … And a broader analysis of drug-related tinnitus reports found full recovery in only about 65% of cases, so resolution is common but not guaranteed. Now: Separately, a broader analysis of 661 reports of drug-related tinnitus, from any drug, in Spain's national pharmacovigilance database recorded the outcome as recovered, with or without lasting effects, in 65.4% of reports, still recovering in 4.5% and not recovered in 12.7%; in the remaining 17.4% the outcome was unknown. … A broader analysis of 661 Spanish reports of drug-related tinnitus recorded recovery, with or without lasting effects, in 65.4% and no recovery in 12.7%, so recovery is common but not guaranteed. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The figure comes from Lisbona-Alquézar, Lanuza-Giménez et al., 2020, an analysis of tinnitus reports in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System's database, which the page did not cite; the page's one source on drug-related tinnitus in general, an analysis of the US FDA's adverse event reporting database (Wang, Tang & Zhuge, 2024), gives the figure only in its introduction, quoting that study. The study's outcome category is recovered with or without sequelae: of 661 reports, 432 (65.4%) were recorded as recovered, 30 (4.5%) as recovering, 84 (12.7%) as not recovered, and 115 (17.4%) had no known outcome. The page now cites the study and uses its category. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/beta-blockers-and-tinnitus

Correction: Otosclerosis Explained: A Less Common Cause of Tinnitus

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article called a 0.8% remission rate among 388 people with chronic tinnitus a rate of spontaneous remission. The study behind it does not measure spontaneous remission: 88% of the group had sought at least one tinnitus-specific treatment, and the paper does not say whether the three people whose tinnitus went had been treated. Previously: against a background where spontaneous remission of established chronic tinnitus ran at 0.8% in a study of 388 patients. Now: against a background where, in a German clinic study of 388 patients with chronic tinnitus first seen between 2012 and 2017 and surveyed again in 2018, only 3 (0.8%) reported that it had gone. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The figure is from Simões, Neff et al., 2021, in Scientific Reports, which the page did not cite: 388 patients who had visited a tertiary tinnitus clinic between 2012 and 2017 answered a mail survey in 2018, and 3 (0.8%) reported that their tinnitus had gone. The same paper reports that 88% had sought at least one tinnitus-specific treatment, so the figure describes remission in a largely treated clinic group, not remission without treatment. The paper does not say the three had been treated either, so this is a word the source does not support rather than one it contradicts; the page now describes the study without the word 'spontaneous'. The same wording on the article about whether tinnitus can be cured was corrected at the same time. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/otosclerosis

Correction: Vertigo, Dizziness and Tinnitus: Why They Travel Together

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article gave the lifetime prevalence of vestibular vertigo as around 7.8%, a figure neither of its listed sources contained. The German population survey it now cites for that figure reports 7.4%, as corrected in a 2006 erratum. Previously: while vestibular vertigo specifically has a lifetime prevalence around 7.8%. Now: In a nationally representative German survey that screened 4,869 adults, 22.9% had had moderate or severe dizziness or vertigo in the past 12 months, and the same survey put the lifetime prevalence of vestibular vertigo, the kind that comes from the balance system, at 7.4%. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The page now cites Neuhauser, von Brevern et al., 2005, a neurotologic survey of the German general population in Neurology, whose PubMed record gives the lifetime prevalence of vestibular vertigo as 7.4%, marked as corrected, and links the erratum the journal published in 2006. Neither source the page listed, Bisdorff, Bosser et al., 2013, and Rim, Lee et al., 2025, contains 7.8%, or the 23% it gave beside it for dizziness or vertigo in the past year. That second figure was right: a 2008 paper from the same German survey (Neuhauser, Radtke et al.) reports 22.9%, and the page now cites it too. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/vertigo-dizziness-and-tinnitus-connection

Correction: Hyperacusis and Tinnitus: When Sound Itself Becomes Painful

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said some estimates put hyperacusis at up to 40% of people with tinnitus, higher in severe cases, in the body and an FAQ answer, and gave no source. The studies of tinnitus patients gathered in a 2021 review report between 12.8% and 63%, and a 2014 analysis of 1,713 patients found 55%. Previously: some estimates suggest up to 40% of people with tinnitus also have some degree of hyperacusis, rising higher in severe tinnitus cases. … Some estimates suggest up to 40% of people with tinnitus have some degree of hyperacusis, rising higher in severe tinnitus cases. Now: How much they overlap depends on who is counted and how: across the seven studies of tinnitus patients gathered in a 2021 scoping review, between 12.8% and 63% also had hyperacusis, and one of those studies found the proportion rose with tinnitus severity. … Frequently, though estimates vary widely. Across seven studies of tinnitus patients gathered in a 2021 scoping review, between 12.8% and 63% also had hyperacusis, and one of them found the proportion rose with tinnitus severity. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. A 2021 scoping review of hyperacusis prevalence (Ren, Xu et al., Frontiers in Neurology) gathered seven studies of patients with tinnitus, which reported hyperacusis in 12.8% to 63% of them, and notes that one of those studies found the proportion rose with tinnitus severity. A 2014 analysis of 1,713 patients in the Tinnitus Research Initiative database (Schecklmann, Landgrebe et al., PLoS One) counted 935 of them, 55%, as having hyperacusis. So 40% was not the top of the published range. The page now cites the review and gives its range. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/hyperacusis-and-tinnitus

Correction: PTSD and Tinnitus: When the Sound and the Trauma Share a Cause

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article gave the PTSD coefficients in a 2026 study of post-9/11 veterans as running from −0.226 to −0.657, which made the largest of them negative. The largest, 0.657 for functional impairment, is positive, as are those for sleep disturbance and pain; only the two memory coefficients are negative. Previously: For scale, PTSD itself predicted every outcome far more strongly (βs from −0.226 to −0.657). Now: For scale, PTSD itself predicted every outcome far more strongly (βs ranging in size from 0.226 to 0.657 across the outcomes, including 0.500 for pain and 0.657 for functional impairment). Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The full text of McCormick, Wallander et al., 2026, in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology, gives the PTSD coefficients as −.226 for working memory, −.266 for explicit memory, .242 for executive and attentional functioning, .626 for sleep disturbance, .500 for pain and .657 for functional impairment. The abstract gives only the span, from −.226 to .657, and the page had printed both ends as negative. The point the page makes with the figures, that PTSD predicted every outcome far more strongly than tinnitus did, stands. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/ptsd-and-tinnitus

Correction: Tinnitus Disability Claims: A Guide by Country

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said that in the UK tinnitus could factor into Armed Forces Compensation Scheme claims based on functional impact rather than a fixed percentage. The scheme pays awards set by a tariff of injuries, and the tariff counts tinnitus within awards for hearing loss, with no separate award for tinnitus alone. Previously: Tinnitus alone doesn't have a dedicated disability benefit path the way VA claims work, but it can factor into Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments or, for veterans, Armed Forces Compensation Scheme claims, based on functional impact rather than a fixed percentage. Now: There is no standalone tinnitus rating like the VA's. … For injury or illness caused by service on or after 6 April 2005, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme pays awards set by a tariff of injuries, and that tariff counts tinnitus inside awards for hearing loss: no separate award is payable for tinnitus alone. If you are no longer serving and service before 6 April 2005 caused or worsened the condition, the claim goes to the War Pension Scheme instead. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. GOV.UK's guidance on the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme says it covers injury, illness or death caused by service on or after 6 April 2005, that its payments are calculated by reference to a tariff of injuries, and that people no longer serving whose disablement comes from earlier service claim under the War Pension Scheme. Schedule 3 of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) Order 2011 says all awards for hearing loss include compensation for associated tinnitus, and that no separate award is payable for tinnitus alone. The page now cites both. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-disability-claims

Correction: Industrial Workers: Understanding Your OSHA Hearing Rights

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said an estimated 22 million US workers are currently exposed to hazardous noise on the job, in the body and an FAQ answer. That figure came from national survey data from 1999 to 2004; NIOSH's current estimate is about 27 million a year. Previously: An estimated 22 million US workers are currently exposed to hazardous noise levels on the job, making this one of the most common preventable occupational health risks in the country, not a niche concern limited to a few especially loud industries. … An estimated 22 million US workers are currently exposed to hazardous noise levels on the job, which makes this one of the most common preventable occupational health risks in the country rather than a niche concern. Now: NIOSH estimates that about 27 million US workers are exposed to hazardous noise at work each year, making this one of the most common preventable occupational health risks in the country, not a niche concern limited to a few especially loud industries. An earlier NIOSH analysis, of national survey data from 1999–2004, put the figure at 22 million, or 17% of workers, counting noise at their current job so loud that they had to raise their voice to be heard. … NIOSH estimates that about 27 million US workers are exposed to hazardous noise at work each year, which makes this one of the most common preventable occupational health risks in the country rather than a niche concern. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The 22 million comes from a NIOSH analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 1999 to 2004 (Tak, Davis & Calvert, 2009, American Journal of Industrial Medicine), in which 17% of employed workers reported noise at their current job so loud that they had to speak in a raised voice to be heard. The CDC's page About Occupational Hearing Loss, last reviewed on 13 April 2026, says about 27 million workers are exposed to hazardous noise at work each year; on that page, 22 million is the number exposed to ototoxic chemicals. The page now gives the current estimate and dates the older one. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/industrial-workers-osha-hearing-rights

Correction: Ear Seeds and Auriculotherapy for Tinnitus: The Evidence

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a longitudinal study of auricular acupressure combined with a self-help intervention found sustained benefit over time, in the body and an FAQ answer. The study followed 39 people for six weeks and did not test whether the improvement lasted; its authors say a longer study is needed to find out. Previously: A separate longitudinal study of auricular acupressure combined with self-help intervention for chronic tinnitus did find sustained benefit over time, supporting that a more self-directed version can still help … A separate longitudinal study of auricular acupressure combined with a self-help intervention did find sustained benefit over time, which supports a more self-directed version Now: It followed 39 people with chronic tinnitus who had bought a commercial acupressure device, worn around the ear, from an ordinary online store and used it for six weeks alongside a smartphone app offering self-help tips, reporting on their symptoms twice a day. … The authors themselves say a longer study is needed to test whether the improvement persists. It is a short-term signal for a self-directed version, not evidence of lasting benefit … That suggests a self-directed version may help short term, but the study was not randomised, did not test whether the benefit lasts, and tested a device rather than seeds. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The study, Schlee, Simoes and Pryss, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Medicine, which the page already cited, followed 39 users of a commercial acupressure device for six weeks; against a matched control group, the significant improvements were in tinnitus loudness (p = 0.027) and stress (p = 0.003). Its discussion says an analysis over a longer period could test whether the improvement persists over time, and its abstract calls for long-term assessment. The page now describes the study's length, design and limits, including the declared interest: the lead author is a paid consultant to the company that owns the device, which supplied the data. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/auriculotherapy-ear-seeds-tinnitus

Correction: Is There a Pill for Tinnitus? What the Drug Trials Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said drug candidates for cochlear synaptopathy were in early trials and that CGRP-targeting migraine drugs were being tested for tinnitus. Neither was in a trial that had started: the only registered tinnitus trials of either approach are listed as not yet recruiting. Previously: Drug candidates targeting cochlear synaptopathy are in early trials … CGRP-targeting migraine drugs are being tested on the theory of shared neural hypersensitivity. … Where that stands is covered in where tinnitus research is headed: candidates in early trials, none available, and most drugs at that stage never arriving. Now: Two trials registered in 2026 target narrower groups: a placebo-controlled trial of CIL001 (paliroden), a cochlear synaptopathy drug, in chronic tinnitus, and COMPACT-PM, a Stanford trial comparing anti-CGRP migraine drugs with older migraine preventives in people with tinnitus and migraine. ClinicalTrials.gov listed both as not yet recruiting in September 2026. … Both were registered in 2026, and when their ClinicalTrials.gov records were checked in September 2026, both were listed as not yet recruiting. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. A search of ClinicalTrials.gov for tinnitus trials of synaptopathy or CGRP-targeting drugs finds two. NCT07826507, a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of paliroden (CIL001) sponsored by Cilcare, was submitted on 4 September 2026 and first posted on 17 September, twelve days after this article was published; it is not yet recruiting, with an estimated start in January 2027. NCT07655440, COMPACT-PM at Stanford, was first posted on 17 June 2026 and compares CGRP-targeting drugs with conventional migraine preventives, with no placebo arm; it too is not yet recruiting. The same overstatement on the article about where tinnitus research is headed was corrected on the same day. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/drugs-for-tinnitus

Correction: The History of Tinnitus Treatment, From Ancient Egypt to Today

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said, in the body and an FAQ answer, that Roman medicine divided tinnitus treatment by whether the noise came from the head or the ear, and told patients whose tinnitus came from the ear to hold their breath until they laughed. The Roman source, Celsus, sorted tinnitus by cause, and for tinnitus from a cold advised cleaning the ear and holding the breath until some liquid frothed out of it. Previously: Roman medicine took a notably systematic approach for its era, dividing tinnitus treatment based on where the noise was believed to originate. If the tinnitus was thought to stem from the head, treatment involved exercise, gargling, and applying radish, cucumber juice, honey, and vinegar to the ear. If it was thought to stem from the ear itself, patients were instructed to clear the ear and hold their breath until they laughed. … Roman medicine divided treatment by where the noise was believed to originate. … If from the ear itself: clearing the ear and holding your breath until you laughed. Now: He described tinnitus as a ringing that the ears produce within themselves, and he ranked it by cause: least serious when it came with a cold, worse when caused by illness or prolonged headaches, and worst when it preceded the onset of serious illness, especially epilepsy. The treatment followed the cause. For a cold, the ear was to be cleaned and the breath held until some liquid frothed out of it. For illness and head pain, he prescribed exercise, massage, washing, gargling and a thinning diet, with ear drops of radish juice and rose oil or wild cucumber root juice, or castoreum, a secretion from beavers, with vinegar and laurel oil. … Celsus, writing in the first century AD, matched the treatment to the cause. For tinnitus with a cold: clean the ear and hold the breath until some liquid froths out of it. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The page's own source for Roman medicine, Maltby, 2012, in the International Tinnitus Journal, translates the passage on tinnitus in Celsus's De Medicina (6.7.8). Celsus ranks tinnitus by cause: least serious when it comes from a cold, worse when caused by disease or prolonged headaches, worst when it precedes serious illness, especially epilepsy. For a cold, the ear should be cleaned and the breath held until some liquid froths out from it; for disease and head pain, he prescribes exercise, massage, washing and gargling, a thinning diet, and ear drops. The passage does not divide treatment by head and ear, and does not mention laughter. The page now follows Celsus's own order. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/history-of-tinnitus-treatment

Correction: Veterans and Tinnitus: Why It's the #1 VA Disability Claim

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said, in the body and an FAQ answer, that more than 2.3 million veterans compensated for tinnitus in fiscal year 2020 was the most recent figure traceable to VA's own reporting, and that figures of 3 million and above usually had no year attached. VA's own benefits report for fiscal year 2025 counts 3,583,295 service-connected tinnitus disabilities among compensation recipients. Previously: Figures quoted elsewhere online run higher — 3 million and above — usually without a year attached. Compensation counts rise every year, so a bigger number is not necessarily wrong, but the one above is the most recent we can trace to VA's own reporting rather than to a secondary summary. … Higher figures circulate online — 3 million and above — usually with no year attached. Compensation counts rise every year, so a larger number is not necessarily wrong, but 2.3 million is the most recent figure traceable to VA's own reporting rather than to a secondary summary. Now: The Veterans Benefits Administration's 2025 Annual Benefits Report lists tinnitus as the most prevalent service-connected disability among all veterans receiving compensation at the end of fiscal year 2025, at 3,583,295, well ahead of limitation of knee flexion at 2,312,985. Hearing loss is sixth, at 1,690,837. These are counts of disabilities, not of veterans … VA's research pages give an older figure, counted in veterans: more than 2.3 million veterans receiving compensation for tinnitus in fiscal year 2020, against more than 1.3 million for hearing loss Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The Veterans Benefits Administration's 2025 Annual Benefits Report: Compensation, covering the fiscal year that ended on 30 September 2025, has a table of the most prevalent service-connected disabilities of all compensation recipients that puts tinnitus first at 3,583,295 and hearing loss sixth at 1,690,837. The copy on VA's website was last modified on 11 May 2026, before this page first made the claim on 3 September. So figures above 3 million do appear in VA's own reporting, with a year attached, and fiscal year 2020 was not the latest. The report counts disabilities rather than veterans and asks readers to note the difference, and the page now uses its wording. This also overtakes part of the reasoning of this article's correction of 3 September, which said the higher figure appeared only in secondary summaries without a year. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/veterans-and-tinnitus-va-disability

Correction: Can Tinnitus Be Cured? An Honest Answer

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said surgery for otosclerosis has real evidence of resolving tinnitus in a majority of cases. The evidence shows improvement more often than resolution: in a prospective study of 168 patients, 37% said their tinnitus had disappeared completely. Previously: Otosclerosis — surgery has real evidence of resolving tinnitus, not just hearing loss, in a majority of cases. Now: Otosclerosis — surgery has real evidence of improving tinnitus, not just hearing loss, though complete resolution is the less common outcome. A 2025 systematic review of 22 studies found them too varied to pool; most reported improvement in tinnitus severity of 15.7% to 64% (median 46.3%). In a prospective study of 168 patients, 55% had a significant reduction in tinnitus severity and 37% said it had disappeared completely. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. Hail and Haider's 2025 systematic review in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal covers 22 studies and 2,233 patients, found them too varied to pool, and reports that most studies found improvement in tinnitus severity after surgery of 15.7% to 64% (median 46.3%), with 2.9% to 11% of patients worse in the fewer studies that recorded worsening. In Dziendziel, Skarżyński et al., 2019, in Otology & Neurotology, 93 of 168 stapedotomy patients (55%) had a significant reduction in tinnitus severity, 62 (37%) reported that it had disappeared completely, 63 (38%) reported no change and 12 (7%) an increase. Neither supports resolution in a majority of cases. Both are now cited on this page, and the linked otosclerosis article gives the same figures. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/can-tinnitus-be-cured

Correction: Can Tinnitus Be Cured? An Honest Answer

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article concluded from a study in which 3 of 388 people with chronic tinnitus, 0.8%, reported remission that full spontaneous resolution is possible but rare, in the body and an FAQ answer. The study does not measure spontaneous resolution: 88% of the group had sought at least one tinnitus-specific treatment, and the paper does not say whether the three had been treated. Previously: Full spontaneous resolution of established chronic tinnitus is possible, but it is not something to plan around. … meaning full spontaneous resolution of established chronic tinnitus is possible but genuinely rare, not something to plan around. Now: Most of the group, 88%, had sought at least one tinnitus-specific treatment. Full resolution of established chronic tinnitus is possible, but it is not something to plan around. … Nor is the 0.8% a measure of what happens without treatment: 88% of the group had sought at least one tinnitus-specific treatment. Full resolution of established chronic tinnitus is possible but rare, not something to plan around. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 sourcing pass, in which every claim the earlier fact-checkers could not verify was re-traced to its source. The page's source, Simões, Neff et al., 2021, in Scientific Reports, sent a mail survey in 2018 to patients who had visited a tertiary tinnitus clinic between 2012 and 2017; of the 388 who replied, 3 (0.8%) reported full remission. The same paper reports that 88% had sought at least one tinnitus-specific treatment, so the 0.8% describes remission in a largely treated clinic group, not resolution without treatment. The paper does not say the three had been treated either, so this is a word the source does not support rather than one it contradicts; the page now describes the study without the word 'spontaneous' and says what share of the group had been treated. The same wording on the otosclerosis article was corrected at the same time. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/can-tinnitus-be-cured

Correction: Tinnitus Treatments Compared: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The comparison graded neurofeedback D, Preliminary, a grade defined as early-stage research often without controlled human trials. The evidence it rests on includes two randomised trials, of 94 and 43 patients, whose results point in different directions, which is the definition of grade C. Previously: Neurofeedback … D — Preliminary: early-stage or exploratory research, often without controlled human trials yet. Now: Neurofeedback … C — Limited: small studies, inconsistent results, or methodological weaknesses that make the findings hard to rely on. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 review of the comparison table, when the neurofeedback entry's evidence line was rewritten to name what it rests on: a 24-participant study with no control group, a randomised trial of 94 patients that found no distress advantage over a minimal intervention (Jensen et al., 2023), and a 43-person randomised trial of fMRI neurofeedback against group CBT (Gninenko et al., 2024). The grade had not been updated to match. The grade was never assigned for lack of trials; the trials exist and disagree. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/treatments/compare

Correction: Tinnitus Research Database — Every Source We Cite, Filterable

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The research library credited a 2025 Nature Communications study to Hobeika, Gunasekera, Ficek and colleagues; Gunasekera and Ficek are not authors. It also described the study as a prevalence survey with prevalence rising from about 10% at ages 40–49, figures its abstract does not report, when it is a machine-learning study of risk factors for tinnitus and its severity. Previously: Hobeika L, Gunasekera K, Ficek B, et al. (2025). Nature Communications. … Large-scale UK Biobank cohort analysis of tinnitus prevalence and risk factors. Found age-related prevalence rising from ~10% (40–49) to a peak in the 65–79 bracket Now: Hobeika L, Fillingim M, Tanguay-Sabourin C, et al. (2025). Nature Communications 16:4244. … Two machine-learning models, one for tinnitus presence and one for severity, trained on socio-demographic, psychological and health predictors in UK Biobank (n = 192,993; 41,042 with tinnitus). Why: Found when a citation check compared the entry with the PubMed record (PMID 40335454), which lists the authors as Hobeika, Fillingim, Tanguay-Sabourin, Roy, Londero, Samson and Vachon-Presseau. The abstract reports hearing health as the primary risk factor for tinnitus presence and severity, mood, neuroticism and sleep as predictors of severity, a severity model that predicted progression over nine years and was validated on 463 people from the Tinnitus Research Initiative database, and no age-band prevalence figures. The entry now describes what the paper reports. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/research

Correction: Beta-Blockers and Tinnitus: Which Ones Are Implicated

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article credited three reporting odds ratios for tinnitus with beta-blockers — 4.28 for bisoprolol, 8.06 for nebivolol and 23.29 for timolol combinations — to VigiBase, the World Health Organization's global database. They come from an analysis of Italy's national reporting database and each rests on five reports; and the article's statement that carvedilol and labetalol had shown no such signal is in neither that analysis nor the VigiBase study it cited. Previously: Analysis of VigiBase — the World Health Organization's global database of individual case safety reports for adverse drug reactions — found meaningfully elevated reporting odds ratios (ROR) for tinnitus with specific beta-blockers: bisoprolol (ROR 4.28), nebivolol (ROR 8.06), and timolol in combination formulations (ROR 23.29). … By contrast, other beta-blockers in the same broad drug class — including carvedilol and labetalol — have not shown the same disproportionate tinnitus signal in this kind of analysis. Now: An analysis of Italy's national adverse-reaction database found significantly elevated reporting odds ratios for tinnitus with bisoprolol (4.28), nebivolol (8.06) and timolol in combination formulations (23.29), each based on five reports. … A 2019 disproportionality analysis of Italy's national spontaneous reporting database, covering 325,980 adverse-reaction reports from 2001 to 2017 … In the same analysis, metoprolol had a significant signal for ear-related reactions overall but not for tinnitus specifically. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The three figures are in Barbieri, Cicala et al., 2019, a disproportionality analysis of the Italian spontaneous reporting database from 2001 to 2017, which the page already listed; its table gives five tinnitus reports behind each of them. The VigiBase study the page also cited, Watson, Taavola et al., 2021, is a descriptive reading of the 123 VigiBase reports of tinnitus with bisoprolol; it reports no odds ratios and does not mention nebivolol or timolol. Carvedilol and labetalol appear in neither paper. In the Italian analysis the contrast within the class is different: metoprolol had a significant signal for ear-related reactions overall but not for tinnitus. The same attribution and the same carvedilol and labetalol claim appeared in the site's medication checker, and were corrected there at the same time. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/beta-blockers-and-tinnitus

Correction: Chronic Sinusitis and Tinnitus: A Population Connection

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article turned the 2026 study it rests on round: 3.83% and 2.15% are the shares of tinnitus patients and of matched controls who had had chronic rhinosinusitis beforehand, not rates of tinnitus in people with and without it. It also presented that association as chronic sinusitis raising tinnitus risk, said people with both chronic sinusitis and allergic rhinitis had the highest risk when the study's adjusted figures do not show that, and said treating sinusitis can help tinnitus, which neither of its sources shows. Previously: A large 2026 study found chronic sinusitis significantly raises tinnitus risk … A large, population-based study found tinnitus was significantly more common in people with a history of chronic rhinosinusitis: 3.83% among those with CRS, versus 2.15% in controls. … Allergic rhinitis showed a similar independent association, and people with both conditions together had the highest risk of all. … Does treating the sinusitis help the tinnitus? … It can. Research reviewing chronic rhinosinusitis's effect on the ear found that CRS-related Eustachian tube dysfunction tends to improve after the CRS itself is treated Now: CRS had been present in 3.83% of the tinnitus group against 2.15% of controls. … It is still an association: the design looks back at who had CRS, and no adjustment rules out every shared cause, so it does not show that sinusitis causes tinnitus. … Allergic rhinitis was associated more strongly, at 1.813. The authors describe the highest risk as being in people with both conditions; on the adjusted figures, having both (1.751) sat between the two single conditions rather than above them. … It may, but that has not been shown directly. A 2023 review found that Eustachian tube function tends to improve after chronic rhinosinusitis is treated, and that is the route with the strongest evidence; whether tinnitus improves with it is not established. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The abstract of Yang, Chung et al., 2026 compares 138,361 tinnitus patients with 384,895 propensity-matched controls and reports the prevalence of pre-existing chronic rhinosinusitis in each group, 3.83% against 2.15%, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.626; a design that looks back from tinnitus to earlier diagnoses shows an association, not that one raises the risk of the other. Its adjusted odds ratios are 1.813 for allergic rhinitis and 1.751 for both conditions, so allergic rhinitis was the stronger association and having both was not the highest, although the paper's own summary describes the highest risk as being in people with both. The 2023 review by Calvo-Henriquez, Di Corso et al. found robust evidence only for Eustachian tube dysfunction and reports that Eustachian tube function improves after chronic rhinosinusitis is treated; its abstract says nothing about tinnitus improving. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/chronic-sinusitis-and-tinnitus

Correction: Allergies and Tinnitus: A Bigger Association Than Most Causes on This Site

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

An answer on this page said the highest tinnitus risk was in people with both allergic rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis. On the study's adjusted odds ratios, which the page itself quotes, having both (1.751) sat below allergic rhinitis alone (1.813). Previously: So the two overlap in mechanism rather than adding up — the highest risk was in people with both, but not dramatically higher than either alone. Now: Having both conditions carried an odds ratio of 1.751 — higher than chronic rhinosinusitis alone, slightly lower than allergic rhinitis alone. The two overlap rather than adding up. … The authors describe the highest risk as being in people with both conditions. On the adjusted figures, having both sits between the two single conditions — above chronic rhinosinusitis, slightly below allergic rhinitis alone. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Yang, Chung et al., 2026 report adjusted odds ratios of 1.813 for allergic rhinitis, 1.626 for chronic rhinosinusitis and 1.751 for both. The paper's own summary says the highest risk was observed in people with both conditions; the answer quoted 1.751 and then repeated that summary, which the figures it had just given do not support. The page now gives both the summary and the numbers, and says which way the numbers point. The chronic sinusitis article made the same claim and is corrected in its own entry. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/allergies-and-tinnitus

Correction: Cholesterol and Tinnitus: The Blood Flow Link

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a retrospective study of simvastatin in subacute tinnitus found some benefit, and described the cholesterol connection as actionable. The study found no significant improvement, and its authors concluded that simvastatin showed no significant efficacy. Previously: through effects on blood flow to the inner ear — a real, actionable connection. … A retrospective study of cholesterol-lowering treatment with simvastatin in patients with subacute tinnitus found some benefit, though its authors called for larger, properly controlled trials before drawing conclusions Now: Whether lowering them helps is unproven. … A retrospective study of 94 patients with subacute tinnitus found no significant improvement in tinnitus scores after 4 months of simvastatin, and its authors called for placebo-controlled trials. … Tinnitus scores fell slightly in both groups, the differences were not significant, and the authors concluded that simvastatin showed no significant efficacy Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study is Canis, Olzowy et al., 2011, which the article described without citing. It compared 58 patients given simvastatin for 4 months with 36 given ginkgo biloba: tinnitus scores fell from 41.3 to 37.4 and from 44.7 to 41.2, differences the authors considered not significant, and they concluded that simvastatin showed no significant efficacy, calling for prospective, placebo-controlled trials with more patients. The study is now cited, alongside a later uncontrolled atorvastatin study that pointed the other way, and the page describes the treatment evidence as weak. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/cholesterol-atherosclerosis-and-tinnitus

Correction: Bell's Palsy and Tinnitus: The Stapedius Muscle Connection

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described its source as a clinical study following 136 Bell's palsy patients. The study enrolled 269; 136 is the number who had pain behind the ear when the palsy began. Previously: A clinical study following 136 Bell's palsy patients found roughly 10% had already reached complete recovery by day 10. … A clinical study following 136 Bell's palsy patients found that by 10 days, about 10% had already reached complete recovery Now: A prospective study of 269 people with Bell's palsy found 10.2% had already fully recovered by day 10. … A prospective study of 269 people with Bell's palsy, all enrolled within 48 hours of onset, found that by day 10, 10.2% had already fully recovered while 39.9% still had severe paresis. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. De Seta, Mancini et al., 2014, the prospective cohort study the page cites, enrolled 269 patients within 48 hours of onset; at onset, 136 of them had postauricular pain. The recovery figure was right: 10.2% had fully recovered after the first 10 days. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/bells-palsy-and-tinnitus

Correction: Diabetes and Tinnitus: What the UK Biobank Data Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the UK Biobank study of diabetes and tinnitus had the advantage of following people forward in time rather than photographing them once. Its analysis was cross-sectional: it compared diabetes and tinnitus at a single point in time, the snapshot the article said it was not. Previously: A separate population-based cohort study using UK Biobank data — one of the largest prospectively tracked health datasets available — has examined the same relationship, with the advantage that it follows people forward in time rather than photographing them once. Now: The paper describes itself as a population-based cohort study, but the analysis was cross-sectional: it compared diabetes and tinnitus at the same point in time rather than following people forward. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The paper, Ji, Zhang et al., 2026 in Acta Diabetologica, is titled a population-based cohort study, but its abstract states that the authors performed cross-sectional logistic regression on UK Biobank data from 136,181 people. The page now reports what the study found and its limits, including a published letter's cautions about how diabetes type and age were handled. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/diabetes-and-tinnitus

Correction: Diabetes and Tinnitus: What the UK Biobank Data Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said blood sugar control matters independently for the ear, citing unnamed research linking a higher HbA1c to more severe hearing impairment, and suggested tinnitus could be a sign of how well blood sugar had been controlled. Two of the studies the article itself described found no significant link between HbA1c and tinnitus, and the third found one mainly in younger women. Previously: Diabetes is linked to a higher rate of tinnitus and hearing loss, with blood sugar control specifically implicated … Control matters independently, which is the actionable part. Research has found poor glycemic control — a higher HbA1c — associated with more severe hearing impairment … it may be one more data point about how well controlled your blood sugar has been. Now: The evidence is mixed. In a 2026 UK Biobank analysis of 136,181 people, HbA1c, the standard measure of long-term blood sugar control, was associated with tinnitus, mainly in younger women. A Hungarian study found no significant correlation between HbA1c and hearing impairment or tinnitus, and an Iranian study found none between HbA1c and tinnitus … Whether it changes tinnitus specifically has not been shown consistently, and it would be overstating the evidence to present tinnitus as a gauge of how well your diabetes is controlled. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Somogyi, Rosta & Vaszi, 2013, the Hungarian study the page quoted for its 80% figure, found no significant correlation between increased HbA1c and hearing impairment or tinnitus in type 2 diabetes. Mousavi, Sajadinejad et al., 2021 found no link between tinnitus and fasting blood sugar or HbA1c, though they did link longer diabetes duration with tinnitus. Ji, Zhang et al., 2026 found HbA1c associated with tinnitus mainly in younger women, in a cross-sectional analysis. Together they make the evidence on blood sugar control mixed, not the independent, actionable factor the page described, and the page did not say which research linked HbA1c to more severe hearing impairment. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/diabetes-and-tinnitus

Correction: Stopping Benzodiazepines: Tinnitus as a Withdrawal Symptom

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said that in a case series of three patients, tinnitus persisted for six to eight months in two of them before resolving. That figure is a 2020 review's account of two patients in an earlier, 1986 study; of the case series itself, one patient was still reporting tinnitus at six months and another's had resolved by a year. Previously: In a frequently cited case series following discontinuation of long-term therapeutic-dose diazepam, up to 30mg daily, tinnitus persisted for six to eight months in two of the three patients before resolving. … In the case series referenced above, tinnitus persisted for 6 to 8 months in two of the three documented patients before resolving. Now: A 2020 review reports that two patients from that 1986 study had tinnitus for 6 to 8 months after stopping; in a later case series, one man was still reporting it at 6 months and another's had resolved by a year. … Two of the three cases in the 1988 series came from that study: one man was still reporting tinnitus at a 6-month follow-up, and another's tinnitus had lessened by 6 months and resolved by a year. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Laskey & Opitz, 2020, the review the page cited, gives the 6-to-8-month figure for two patients in Busto, Sellers et al., 1986, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 40 long-term users, and describes the 1988 series by Busto, Fornazzari et al. separately: its first patient still reported tinnitus at a 6-month follow-up, its second improved by 6 months and recovered by a year, and its third never fully stopped the drug. The same claim appeared in the site's medication checker and was corrected there at the same time. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/benzodiazepine-withdrawal-and-tinnitus

Correction: Hidden Hearing Loss: Tinnitus With a Normal Hearing Test

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the meta-analysis it cited had found the human brainstem-response evidence still inconsistent. Pooled across 11 studies, that meta-analysis in fact found wave I of the auditory brainstem response significantly reduced in people with tinnitus and normal hearing, which its authors read as evidence of noise-induced synaptopathy; only the wave V results were inconsistent. Previously: A more recent meta-analysis attempting to pool the available human ABR studies on this question found the overall body of evidence remains genuinely inconsistent, with earlier reviews noting the number of studies specifically on non-hearing-loss tinnitus patients was small enough to make firm conclusions difficult. Now: A 2021 meta-analysis in Frontiers in Neuroscience pooled 11 studies that used auditory brainstem responses in people with tinnitus and normal hearing thresholds. The pooled results supported a significantly reduced wave I amplitude — the early part of the response, which reflects the auditory nerve — and a consistently raised wave V to wave I ratio, which the authors read as evidence of noise-induced synaptopathy together with increased central gain. Changes in wave V itself were inconsistent between studies. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The meta-analysis is Chen, Zhao, Mahafza and Lu, 2021, in Frontiers in Neuroscience, and it was already listed on this page. Its abstract says earlier brainstem-response studies had given inconsistent results; its own pooled result, from 11 studies, supported a significantly reduced wave I amplitude and a consistently raised V/I ratio, and it concludes that the results indicate noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy in tinnitus patients with normal hearing. The page now reports that result beside the 2017 study that found no sign of synaptopathy, and notes that the brainstem response is an indirect measure, so neither result settles the question. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/hidden-hearing-loss-and-tinnitus

Correction: Lyme Disease and Tinnitus: An Often-Missed Connection

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article misread two uncited figures: it gave 76.5% as the share of all patients at a tick-borne disease clinic who had tinnitus, when it was the share of those with ear, nose or throat symptoms, and it reported antibodies to the Lyme bacterium in 10.5% of people in hospital with sudden hearing loss as Lyme disease. On that basis it called Lyme disease confirmed as a cause of unexplained sudden hearing loss. Previously: 76.5% of patients with tick-borne disease reported tinnitus in one study. … In a study of 216 patients with tick-borne diseases, tinnitus was the single most commonly reported symptom, affecting 76.5% of patients … one analysis found Lyme disease present in 10.5% of hospitalized patients being treated specifically for sudden sensorineural hearing loss of unknown cause … and confirmed in cases of unexplained sudden hearing loss specifically. Now: 162 had ear, nose or throat symptoms, and among them tinnitus was the most common complaint (76.5%) … That is a specialist clinic population with no comparison group, so it shows tinnitus is common among people attending such a clinic — not how often Lyme disease causes tinnitus in general. … Nine (10.5%) had antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi … Antibodies show that someone has met the bacterium at some point … They do not show that the infection is what damaged the ear. Testing earns its place when the story points at Lyme — not as a routine screen. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The first figure is from Sowula, Składzień et al., 2018: its abstract reports that 162 of the 216 patients had ear, nose or throat symptoms and that tinnitus was the most common complaint, at 76.5%. That can only be a share of the 162, since 76.5% of 216 would be more people than had any such symptom. The second is from Sowula, Szaleniec et al., 2021, in which 9 of 86 patients admitted with sudden hearing loss had antibodies to Borrelia burgdorferi; antibodies show exposure, not that the infection caused the hearing loss. An evidence-based review, Bakker, Aarts et al., 2012, found antibodies in 16% of people with sudden hearing loss against 13.5% of the general population, with no definite neuroborreliosis among them, and advised against routine screening, and the 2019 US guideline on sudden hearing loss recommends against routine laboratory tests. All four are now cited, and the page says Lyme testing makes sense when there are other signs of the disease. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/lyme-disease-and-tinnitus

Correction: Noise-Induced Tinnitus: How Loud Sound Triggers Ringing

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said, without citing it, that a systematic review found unsafe listening among young people driven by personal listening devices and loud venues in roughly equal measure, when the review put exposure through personal devices at about 24% and at loud entertainment venues at about 48%. It also gave an uncited CDC figure of around 14% tinnitus prevalence in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, which could not be traced back to its source. Previously: driven by personal listening devices and loud entertainment venues in roughly equal measure … CDC occupational data shows workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting have among the highest documented tinnitus prevalence of any industry, at around 14% Now: It put unsafe listening through personal devices at about 24% of young people, and exposure at loud entertainment venues at about 48%. … In US national survey data from 2007, 15% of workers who had ever been exposed to noise at work reported tinnitus, against 5% of workers who never had Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Neither the review nor the CDC data was listed on the page. The review is Dillard, Arunda et al., 2022, in BMJ Global Health: it reports a pooled prevalence of unsafe listening from personal listening devices of 23.81%, and a modelled estimate of 48.20% for loud entertainment venues, alongside the estimate of 0.67 to 1.35 billion young people at risk that the page did quote. The industry figure could not be traced to a source during the editorial review, so it has been replaced by one that could be checked: Masterson, Themann et al., 2016, from the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which found tinnitus in 15% of US workers ever exposed to noise at work against 5% of those never exposed. Both papers are now cited on the page. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/noise-induced-tinnitus

Correction: Fibromyalgia and Tinnitus: The Shared Nerve Pathway

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article credited a study of 101 fibromyalgia patients with finding vestibular symptoms and hyperacusis in up to 87% of its sample, a figure that comes instead from a 2024 review of 17 papers. It also said both conditions had documented responses to SNRIs and pregabalin and called that evidence for a shared mechanism, when the one study behind it had no placebo group and its authors said more research was needed before the drugs could be used for tinnitus. Previously: A separate study found an even higher figure — 74.3% of 101 fibromyalgia patients reported tinnitus, despite normal results on standard hearing tests, and the same research found vestibular symptoms and hyperacusis (sound sensitivity) affecting up to 87% of the sample. … both conditions have documented, if partial, responses to overlapping medication categories … This shared treatment response is itself a form of evidence supporting the shared-mechanism theory, beyond just the co-occurrence statistics. Now: Turkey, 2020: 101 women diagnosed with fibromyalgia, all given an ear, nose and throat examination and hearing tests. 74.3% had tinnitus. … A 2024 narrative review of 17 papers found tinnitus rates ranging from 27.2% to 77.5% … Two months later, tinnitus questionnaire scores had improved in both groups, with no difference between the drugs. There was no placebo or untreated group, so the improvement cannot be separated from tinnitus easing with time or with better-managed fibromyalgia, and the authors themselves concluded that further studies are needed before these drugs can be used for tinnitus. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Neither study was listed on the page. The 101-patient study is Cil, Zateri et al., 2020: its abstract reports tinnitus in 74.3% of the patients, all women, and the table summarising it in Skare and de Carvalho's 2024 narrative review lists tinnitus at 74.3% and no significant hearing loss, with no 87% figure. The 87.0% is in that review's own abstract, as the prevalence of vestibular symptoms (tinnitus, dizziness) and hyperacusis. Cil et al. is also the medication evidence: tinnitus scores improved two months after starting pregabalin or duloxetine, with no difference between them and no placebo group, and the authors concluded that further studies are needed before the drugs can be used for tinnitus. The 2021 Korean study this page already cited calls it a single, small study, and itself found that patients with moderate-to-severe tinnitus were more likely to be taking these medicines, not less. Both papers are now cited, and the page says what each can and cannot show. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/fibromyalgia-and-tinnitus

Correction: Iron Deficiency Anemia and Tinnitus: A Real, Measurable Risk

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article read a health-records study's association as strengthening confidence in a causal link, and told readers there was a real, documented chance that their tinnitus would improve if anemia was found and treated. The study's authors write that their findings do not establish causality, the study had no data on what happened after treatment, and the clinical reports of pulsatile tinnitus improving with treatment that the page described were in neither of its sources. Previously: is exactly the pattern that strengthens confidence in a real causal connection, rather than a coincidental association driven by some other shared factor. … clinical reports describe pulsatile tinnitus specifically (more so than steady, non-pulsatile tinnitus) improving after anemia is treated and corrected. … If anemia is found and treated, there's a real, documented chance the tinnitus — pulsatile tinnitus especially — improves along with it. Now: It does not settle cause, and the authors say so plainly: their findings provide strong evidence of an association but do not establish causality … What the evidence cannot yet tell you is whether treating the anemia makes the tinnitus better. The study did not test that. Its authors suggest that timely iron repletion may help reduce the risk, and say further studies are needed to confirm it. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study is Hung, Weng et al., 2025, in Frontiers in Nutrition, a retrospective analysis of electronic health records from the TriNetX network. Its limitations section says the findings provide strong evidence of an association but do not establish causality, that residual confounding from factors such as noise exposure, stress or diet may account for part or all of it, and that the conclusions should be read as suggestive rather than definitive; it also says the authors had no data on treatment response. It suggests timely iron correction may help reduce the risk and says further studies are needed to confirm that. The page's other source, a 2019 meta-analysis of anemia and hearing loss, does not mention tinnitus, so the sentence about clinical reports has been removed. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/iron-deficiency-anemia-and-tinnitus

Correction: Meningitis and Tinnitus: Test Hearing After Recovery

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article presented a pooled analysis’s hearing-loss rates at different times after meningitis as a gradual decline, quoting three of its five figures, when they are separate estimates for each time window and do not fall steadily. It also said 68% of children tested in one study had hearing loss, a figure that could not be traced back to its source; the one study of children the page cited found sensorineural hearing loss in 36 of the 83 children it tested. Previously: one pooled analysis found hearing loss diagnosed in 30.4% of patients during hospitalization or at discharge, with rates gradually declining over the following months (22.9% within one month, dropping to 10.8% after 180 days) as some cases resolve on their own. In one study of children specifically, 68% of those who underwent hearing testing after bacterial meningitis had some degree of hearing loss detected. Now: Hearing loss was found in 30.4% of those tested during their hospital stay or at discharge, 22.9% within a month, 20.3% at 30 to 60 days, 22.7% at 60 to 180 days, and 10.8% more than 180 days after discharge. … Each time window was pooled from different studies, so it does not follow one group of people as their hearing recovers. … In that Kenyan study, 83 children aged six months to twelve years were tested at discharge after bacterial meningitis. 36 had sensorineural hearing loss Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The pooled analysis is Alviz, Kim et al., 2026, in BMC Medicine, the peer-reviewed version of the conference abstract this page cited before. It calculated a pooled prevalence for each time window as a separate subgroup and reports five: 30.4%, 22.9%, 20.3%, 22.7% and 10.8%. Its authors conclude that hearing loss may appear and recover at different stages, which is why they call for assessments at discharge and during follow-up, and that is the point the page now makes. The 68% figure is not in the conference abstract, and the page's one study of children, Karanja, Oburra et al., 2014, found sensorineural hearing loss in 36 of 83 children tested at discharge after bacterial meningitis; the page now reports that figure. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/meningitis-and-tinnitus

Correction: Tinnitus and Earwax Buildup: A Fixable Cause

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described the share of people with earwax impaction in a US national survey as close to 1 in 5 adults. The 18.6% figure is for everyone in the survey aged 12 and over, not for adults. Previously: A large US national health survey (NHANES data, over 14,000 participants) found cerumen impaction is genuinely common — affecting close to 1 in 5 adults, and roughly a third of adults over 70 Now: A 2024 analysis of US national health survey data (NHANES, 2005–2016) examined 14,230 people aged 12 and over who had both an ear examination and a hearing test. Cerumen impaction was common: 18.6% had some degree of it, close to 1 in 5, rising to 32.4% of those aged 70 and over. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The survey analysis is Tolan, Choi et al., 2024, in Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, which this page already listed without its authors. Its cohort was 14,230 people aged 12 or over who completed an ear examination and a hearing test in NHANES between 2005 and 2016, and it reports impaction in 18.6% of them and in 32.4% of those aged 70 or over. The page's main point about the study was right and still stands: complete impaction was linked to slightly worse hearing but not to tinnitus. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/earwax-and-tinnitus

Correction: Ear Infection (Otitis Media) and Tinnitus: How Strong Is the Link?

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article gave the wrong base for its headline figure: in the study it cites, 60.9% is otitis media's share of all the patients with tinnitus, not of middle-ear-related tinnitus, and the study was a cross-sectional look at patients referred over ten years, not one that tracked them for a decade. It also called a study of 231 adults at two referral centres in Bogotá a multinational study. Previously: A decade-long study of 3,255 patients found ear infections were the single most common cause of middle-ear-related tinnitus. … A decade-long epidemiological study tracking 3,255 patients … among the subset with middle ear disease specifically, otitis media was the single most common cause, present in 60.9% of middle-ear-related tinnitus cases. … Among patients specifically diagnosed with chronic otitis media, a multinational study using a standardized tinnitus questionnaire Now: A study of 3,255 patients referred over a decade found ear infections were the most common ear disorder among those with tinnitus. … A cross-sectional study of 3,255 patients with various ear conditions, referred to an ear, nose and throat hospital in Hyderabad between 2004 and 2014, found tinnitus in 29.3% of all patients studied. Otitis media was the most common ear disorder among those with tinnitus, at 60.9%, well ahead of age-related hearing loss (16.6%) and otosclerosis (14.3%). … Among 231 adults with chronic otitis media at two otology referral centres in Bogotá, Colombia, a cross-sectional study found 51.5% reported severe tinnitus-related discomfort Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The abstract of Manche, Madhavi et al., 2016 describes a cross-sectional study of 3,255 people referred to one ear, nose and throat hospital in Hyderabad between 2004 and 2014, and names otitis media (60.9%), presbycusis (16.6%) and otosclerosis (14.3%) as the most common disorders behind tinnitus in its patients. Presbycusis, age-related hearing loss, is not a middle-ear disease, so the 60.9% cannot be a share of middle-ear-related tinnitus; it is a share of everyone in the study who had tinnitus. The abstract of Peñaranda, García-Chabur et al., 2023 describes a cross-sectional study at two otology referral centres in Bogotá, Colombia; it also lists higher education among the factors associated with more severe tinnitus, which the page had left out and now includes. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/otitis-media-and-tinnitus

Correction: Sigmoid Sinus Wall Abnormalities: A Treatable Cause, and the Trap of Assuming It Is the Cause

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The description of this article said the abnormality turns up in 9% of people with no tinnitus at all; the study behind that figure compared people with pulsatile tinnitus against adults being assessed for cochlear implants, and its abstract does not describe those controls as free of tinnitus. The body also gave a 40.8% rate of vein-wall anomalies as a share of all 80 people in a 2025 study, when it is a share of the 71 who had a CT scan. Previously: It also turns up in 9% of people who have no tinnitus at all. … A 2025 study of 80 people who had pulsatile tinnitus and a confirmed dural arteriovenous fistula found sigmoid sinus wall or jugular bulb anomalies in 40.8% of them. Now: It also turns up in 9% of people without pulsatile tinnitus. … found sigmoid sinus wall or jugular bulb anomalies in 40.8% of the 71 who had a CT scan. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The 9% comes from Cass, Lindquist et al., 2023, a case-control study whose 149 controls were adults undergoing cochlear implant workup. The article's body already described them that way, as people who were not complaining of a whooshing sound; the description, which is the text search results and feeds quote, went further than the study's abstract supports and said they had no tinnitus at all. In Hsieh, Liu et al., 2025, the abstract reports the anomalies among the 71 of its 80 subjects who had CT data: 40.8% of 71 is 29 people, while no whole number of the 80 comes to 40.8%. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/sigmoid-sinus-wall-abnormalities

Correction: Sudden Hearing Loss and Tinnitus: A Real Medical Emergency

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said that outcomes after sudden hearing loss are consistently better the sooner treatment starts, that starting steroids within days rather than weeks is consistently associated with better outcomes across the available research, and that guidelines recommend steroids. A prospective study found no significant difference in hearing outcome between treatment in the first 24 hours and later in the first week, and the US guideline the page cites grades steroids as an option rather than a recommendation. Previously: Outcomes are consistently better the sooner treatment starts, with the window for the best results generally considered to be within the first couple of weeks and ideally much sooner. … starting them promptly — ideally within days, not weeks — is consistently associated with better outcomes across the available research. … Guidelines continue to recommend steroids Now: How much each day matters inside the first week is less settled than urgent-care advice suggests. A 2005 prospective study from Paris treated 326 patients within seven days of onset and, in the 249 who could be assessed at 30 days, found no significant difference in hearing whether treatment started within the first 24 hours or later that week. … The treatment everyone expects, steroids, sits in the weakest category — an option rather than a recommendation … The US guideline still offers steroids within two weeks of onset Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Huy and Sauvaget, 2005, a prospective study at an ear emergency centre in Paris, gave intravenous steroids to 326 patients seen within seven days of onset and found, in the 249 whose hearing could be assessed at one month, no significant difference in final outcome, whatever the audiogram type, whether treatment began within the first 24 hours or later in the first week. The 2019 AAO-HNS guideline the page already cited, Chandrasekhar, Tsai Do et al., 2019, lists steroids as initial therapy within two weeks of onset among its options, which clinicians may offer, rather than among its recommendations. The page still advises same-day care, and now rests that advice on what its sources support: the hearing test, the checks for other causes, and a treatment window measured in days to a couple of weeks. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/sudden-sensorineural-hearing-loss

Correction: Statins and Tinnitus: What a 90,000-Patient Study Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described the statin findings as consistent and dose-independent across the whole class. The study's abstract reports no analysis by dose, and its results were not consistent across statins: fluvastatin showed no significant association with tinnitus. Previously: That said, a sample of over 90,000 people with consistent, dose-independent findings across the statin class is a meaningfully stronger signal than a handful of case reports. Now: That said, a sample of over 90,000 people, broken down drug by drug, is a meaningfully stronger signal than a handful of case reports. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. In Homer, Kasthuri et al., 2026 (published online in 2025), patients with high cholesterol were labelled by exposure to at least one statin, and the abstract reports no analysis by dose. Its individual-statin analysis found fluvastatin's association with tinnitus not significant (odds ratio 1.02, P = .68), a result the article itself reported in the section before the sentence that called the findings consistent. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/statins-and-tinnitus

Correction: Otosclerosis Explained: A Less Common Cause of Tinnitus

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a systematic review of stapes surgery had pooled data from over 2,200 patients in 22 studies. The review states that pooling was not feasible, because the studies differed too much, so its findings are a range across studies rather than a combined result. Previously: A systematic review pooling data from over 2,200 patients across 22 studies found stapes surgery reliably improves both hearing and tinnitus severity … A systematic review pooling over 2,200 patients across 22 studies found stapes surgery reliably improves Now: A 2025 systematic review of 22 studies and 2,233 patients found stapes surgery improves both hearing and tinnitus severity … The studies were too varied in design and measures to pool into a single figure: most reported improvement in tinnitus severity after surgery of 15.7% to 64% (median 46.3%). … in the fewer studies in the review that reported worsening, 2.9% to 11% of patients were worse. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The abstract of Hail and Haider's 2025 review says that, because of heterogeneity in study design, patient population and outcome measures, pooling of data for meta-analysis was not feasible. It reports that most studies found improvement in tinnitus severity after surgery of 15.7% to 64% (median 46.3%), and that fewer studies recorded worsening, in 2.9% to 11% of patients. The page now gives those ranges instead of a pooled result that does not exist. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/otosclerosis

Correction: Tinnitus After Ear Surgery: What to Expect and When

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article credited three figures about the first weeks after a cochlear implant — new tinnitus in 20% of patients, worse tinnitus in 46.7%, and a clinically significant improvement in 60% by three months — to a 300-patient study, and its description was built on them. They come from a different study, of 72 patients, that the page did not cite, and the page also gave the 300-patient study's distress scores as applying only to people who still had tinnitus after surgery, when they describe the whole group. Previously: A 300-patient study found cochlear implants reduced tinnitus overall, but temporarily worsened it in nearly half right after surgery. … Among those who still had tinnitus after surgery, tinnitus-related distress (measured with a standardized questionnaire) dropped substantially too, with median scores falling from 12.0 before surgery to 3.5 after. But the same broader research found something worth knowing directly: temporary induction of new tinnitus, or aggravation of existing tinnitus, occurred in 20% and 46.7% of patients respectively in the immediate post-surgical period Now: Tinnitus-related distress, measured with a standardized questionnaire, fell too: the cohort's median score went from 12.0 before surgery to 3.5 after … A separate 2023 prospective study followed 72 adults through cochlear implantation and found that, immediately after surgery, tinnitus started for the first time in 20% of patients and got worse in 46.7%. By 3 months after implantation, 60% of patients with tinnitus had a clinically significant reduction in their complaints Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The 300-patient study, Assouly, Smit et al., 2022 in Trends in Hearing, reports tinnitus prevalence and distress before and after implantation; it does not report how many patients had new or worse tinnitus straight after surgery, or a 60% improvement at three months. Those figures are in the abstract of Deklerck, Swinnen et al., 2023 in Brain Sciences, a prospective study of 72 adults, which the page now cites for them. Assouly's full text also shows that the median distress scores of 12.0 and 3.5 are for the cohort as a whole, and that its 55.8% is 96 of the 172 patients who answered the tinnitus question before surgery; the page now says both. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-after-ear-surgery

Correction: Tinnitus Symptoms: The Sounds, Patterns and Warning Signs

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said that in a 2022 study of what predicts how severe tinnitus is, what mattered was whether the loudness fluctuates, not how loud the tinnitus is. In that study, how loud patients rated their tinnitus was the strongest predictor on one of its two questionnaires, and the authors describe the loudness finding as tinnitus that had grown louder over the course of the condition, not as fluctuation. Previously: Change in loudness — whether the sound fluctuates, rather than how loud it is … Not, on its own, the absolute loudness — what mattered was whether the loudness changes. Now: Change in loudness — whether the tinnitus had changed in loudness, which the authors discuss as loudness increasing over the course of the condition … How loud people rated the sound at the time of the study was the strongest predictor on the second questionnaire, but it did not make the final model for the first. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second; this one was rebuilt on primary sources. In the full text of Chen, Shen et al., 2022 (Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease), loudness rated on a visual analogue scale is the most influential variable in the model for the Tinnitus Evaluation Questionnaire, ahead of anxiety and change in loudness, and is left out only of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory model. The authors' discussion describes the change-in-loudness finding as patients whose tinnitus loudness increased over the course of the disease having higher scores on both questionnaires. Sleep quality, anxiety and change in loudness remain, correctly, the three factors that predicted severity on both. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-symptoms

Correction: Whiplash and Tinnitus: A Real, Treatable Connection

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described a controlled study in which whiplash patients given manual therapy did better than a waiting list on pain, neck movement and tinnitus, but none of its sources reported such a study; the nearest, a 2016 randomised trial of neck physical therapy, was not a study of whiplash, and the share of its patients with a substantial improvement in tinnitus fell from 53% straight after treatment to 24% six weeks later. The article also called a nerve-block series with no control group evidence that the neck plays a causal role in tinnitus after whiplash. Previously: it's specific evidence that the cervical spine genuinely plays a causal role in at least some post-whiplash tinnitus, not just a coincidental association. … A controlled study assigning whiplash-associated-disorder patients with tinnitus to either a treatment group (manual therapy, stretching, and relaxation techniques targeting muscle tension and trigger points in the head and neck) or a waitlist control group found the treatment group showed improvements in pain, cervical range of motion, and — notably — reduced tinnitus symptoms as well Now: the authors conclude that the cervical plexus could play a significant role in tinnitus after whiplash. Two limits matter. There was no control group, so the result cannot be separated from placebo or from the improvement some people see anyway as a neck injury heals. … A controlled trial of a non-invasive approach exists, but it was not specific to whiplash. A 2016 randomised trial gave 38 people with bothersome tinnitus plus neck complaints six weeks (12 sessions) of neck-focused physical therapy, either immediately or after a six-week wait that served as the comparison period. Straight after treatment, 53% reported a substantial improvement in their tinnitus; six weeks later, the benefit had held in 24%. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The page's sources were the nerve-block series (Kukreja, Lee et al., 2024, Otology & Neurotology), a narrative review (Wadhwa, Jain et al., 2024, Cureus) and a 2014 trial protocol (Michiels, De Hertogh et al., Trials); none reports a waiting-list trial in whiplash patients, and a protocol reports no results. The trial that protocol set out was published as Michiels, Van de Heyning et al., 2016 in Manual Therapy: 38 people with severe tinnitus and neck complaints, who started physical therapy either immediately or after six weeks. Its authors conclude that it can have a positive effect on tinnitus and that larger studies are needed to prove it, and it is now cited for what it found. The nerve-block paper itself concludes only that the cervical plexus could play a significant role, and a series with no control group cannot separate the treatment from placebo or natural recovery. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/whiplash-and-tinnitus

Correction: Tinnitus and the Menstrual Cycle: What Two Studies Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a 2025 study of 558 women linked tinnitus to period pain in general and to unusually light periods. The study found no significant association with period pain taken as a whole and reported none with light periods; the associations it found were with secondary dysmenorrhoea, period pain caused by an underlying condition, and with heavy bleeding. Previously: tinnitus was linked to menstrual cycle irregularities including dysmenorrhea (painful periods, reported by 74.4% of the group) and abnormal cycle patterns like menorrhagia (heavy bleeding, the most common pattern found at 20%) and hypomenorrhea (unusually light bleeding). Now: Tinnitus was significantly more common in women with secondary dysmenorrhoea — period pain that points to an underlying condition such as endometriosis, adenomyosis or fibroids — and in women with menorrhagia. Adjusting for age, income and psychological health problems did not remove either association. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. In Zuriekat, Al-Rawashdeh et al., 2025 (Scientific Reports), the correlation between tinnitus and period pain of all types was not significant (p = 0.105); comparing the types found a significant association with secondary dysmenorrhoea (p < 0.001), and among bleeding patterns the significant one was menorrhagia (p < 0.002). Both held after adjustment for confounding factors. The paper gives light periods (hypomenorrhoea) as one of the patterns participants reported, at 11.11%, and does not report a link between them and tinnitus; the 74.4% the page attached to the link is the share of all participants who had period pain. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-and-menstrual-cycle

Correction: Vitamin B12 Deficiency and Tinnitus: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The source list credited the 1993 study behind this article's central figures — B12 deficiency in 47%, 27% and 19% of three groups of noise-exposed army personnel — to the International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. It was published in the American Journal of Otolaryngology. Previously: Vitamin B12 deficiency in patients with chronic-tinnitus and noise-induced hearing loss, International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology Now: Shemesh, Attias et al., 1993 — Vitamin B12 deficiency in patients with chronic-tinnitus and noise-induced hearing loss, American Journal of Otolaryngology, PubMed Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, and every source label was compared with its PubMed record. The record for this paper, Shemesh, Attias et al., 1993, gives the journal as the American Journal of Otolaryngology, and its DOI matches the address the page linked to, so the link reached the right paper under the wrong journal's name. The figures the page quotes from it match the abstract. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/vitamin-b12-deficiency-and-tinnitus

Correction: Tinnitus in Musicians: Occupational Risk and Prevention

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article presented the 2026 finding that genre makes no significant difference to musicians' risk as contested, saying an earlier review had reached the opposite conclusion, without saying that on tinnitus the two reviews agree: the earlier review found tinnitus almost equally common in pop/rock and classical musicians. It also called that review's 38.6% hearing loss figure close to the newer pooled estimate, which is 25.7%. Previously: This is genuinely contested rather than settled. … That genre finding is worth flagging as contested rather than settled. An earlier systematic review — 41 studies covering 4,618 professional musicians — reached the opposite conclusion … Its overall hearing loss figure, 38.6%, is close to the newer pooled estimate; the disagreement is specifically about whether genre explains part of the risk. Now: That genre finding is worth flagging as contested for hearing loss, though not for tinnitus. … Its overall hearing loss figure, 38.6%, is higher than the newer pooled estimate. On tinnitus itself the two reviews agree more than they differ: the earlier one found tinnitus to be the most common symptom and almost equally distributed between pop/rock and classical players. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The earlier review, Di Stadio, Dipietro et al., 2018 (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health), found hearing loss significantly more common in pop/rock than in classical musicians, 63.5% against 32.8%, but reports tinnitus as the most common symptom and almost equally distributed between the two. The 2026 meta-analysis, McCray, Ripp et al. (Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery), puts hearing loss at 25.7% of musicians, so the earlier review's 38.6% is well above it rather than close to it. The FAQ answer on whether rock musicians are at higher risk now answers for tinnitus first. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-in-musicians

Correction: Tinnitus and Blood Pressure: Is There a Real Link?

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described a 2023 Taiwanese study, which found people with tinnitus no more likely than matched controls to have had high blood pressure beforehand, as a study of ordinary, non-pulsatile tinnitus. As its abstract describes it, the study took adults with a first-time tinnitus diagnosis, with no restriction to the non-pulsatile kind and no separate analysis of pulsatile tinnitus. Previously: there is now a specific answer for the non-pulsatile kind. … Read it for what it covers. This is about hypertension preceding ordinary, non-pulsatile tinnitus. Now: there is now a specific answer for tinnitus in general. … Read it for what it covers. The study counted tinnitus diagnoses of every kind and did not analyse pulsatile tinnitus separately; because pulsatile tinnitus is the rarer type, the result speaks mainly to ordinary, steady tinnitus. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The abstract of Huang, Xirasagar et al., 2023 (Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology) describes 542,884 adults with a first-time tinnitus diagnosis from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, each matched to a control, and mentions no restriction to non-pulsatile tinnitus and no analysis by type. The finding itself was reported correctly — 35.58% against 35.5% with prior hypertension — and because pulsatile tinnitus is the rarer kind, the page's practical conclusion about steady tinnitus stands. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-and-blood-pressure

Correction: Vitamin D Deficiency and Tinnitus: The Growing Evidence

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article gave the vitamin D cut-off in a 2021 case-control study as 15 ng/dL, in both the body and an FAQ answer. The unit is ng/mL; 15 ng/dL is a tenth of that level, so anyone comparing a blood test result with the page would have been out by a factor of ten. Previously: patients with more severely low vitamin D (at or below 15 ng/dL) … Patients with more severely low vitamin D, at or below 15 ng/dL Now: Within the tinnitus group, patients with the lowest levels, at or below 15 ng/mL, had significantly higher tinnitus severity scores on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and a visual analog scale than those with higher levels. (The paper's abstract prints that cut-off as 15 ng/dl, but its other vitamin D figures are in ng/mL.) Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The paper, Nowaczewska, Osiński et al., 2021 in PLoS One, prints the cut-off as 15 ng/dl in its abstract and results, and the page had copied it. But the same paper defines vitamin D deficiency as below 20 ng/mL, and its abstract gives the average levels, 19.86 in the tinnitus group and 27.43 in controls, in ng/ml. The page now uses ng/mL and says that the paper's abstract prints the cut-off as ng/dl. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/vitamin-d-deficiency-and-tinnitus

Correction: Autism and Sound Tolerance: Three Different Things That Get Called One

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said that none of the PubMed records on autism and tinnitus was a prevalence study of tinnitus in autistic people, and that no link had been documented because nobody had looked. Two published studies measure the overlap directly, and one of them was designed as exactly that prevalence study. Previously: A PubMed search for autism spectrum together with tinnitus returns fewer than twenty records, and not one of them is a prevalence study of tinnitus in autistic people. The sound-tolerance research is substantial; the tinnitus research is effectively absent. … It does not offer a documented link between autism and tinnitus itself, because nobody has looked. Now: A PubMed search for autism spectrum together with tinnitus returns fewer than twenty records. Two of them measure the overlap directly, and both are worth knowing mainly for how little they can tell you. … On tinnitus itself it offers two studies of co-occurrence, one small and self-selected, one built from insurance claims, and no evidence of a causal link. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Danesh, Lang et al., 2015 set out to evaluate the prevalence of tinnitus and hyperacusis in people with Asperger's syndrome: 55 people were included in the analysis of a mailed survey, a 15.5% response rate, and 35% of them reported tinnitus. Zhang, DiGuiseppi et al., 2026, a cross-sectional study of 40,990,295 US Medicaid beneficiaries aged 1 to 20, found an adjusted odds ratio of 1.54 for an autism diagnosis among those diagnosed with tinnitus. Neither shows that autism causes tinnitus, and the page still says no study does; what it can no longer say is that nobody has looked. Both studies are now cited on the page, with their limits, and the FAQ answer that said the link had not been studied was corrected with the body. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/autism-sound-tolerance-and-tinnitus

Correction: Exercise and Tinnitus: More Nuanced Than 'It Helps'

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the survey behind its warning about intense exercise found the negative effect particularly among people with somatic tinnitus. The survey found no difference between people with somatic tinnitus and others for moderate or high-intensity exercise; the difference it did find was that people with somatic tinnitus more often reported light exercise making their tinnitus worse. Previously: higher-intensity physical activity was associated with a negative effect on tinnitus for some respondents, particularly noted among people with somatic tinnitus specifically … An international web-based survey found higher-intensity physical activity was associated with a negative effect on tinnitus for some respondents, noted particularly among people with somatic tinnitus. Now: The survey also compared people whose tinnitus had been diagnosed as somatic with those diagnosed with other types. The two groups did not differ on moderate or high-intensity exercise; the difference was at the other end — people with somatic tinnitus more often reported light exercise making their tinnitus worse. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, by reading the full text of the survey the page cited: Michiels, Harrison et al., 2019, an international web-based survey of 6,115 people with tinnitus. Among the 1,262 whose tinnitus cause had been diagnosed by a physician, 154 had somatic tinnitus. The paper reports no significant difference between the somatic and non-somatic groups in how often moderate or intense exercise was said to worsen tinnitus, and significantly more reports of light exercise worsening it in the somatic group. Across the whole survey, the harder the workout, the more people said it made their tinnitus worse, so the page's advice to start at light-to-moderate intensity stands; it now adds that people with somatic tinnitus should watch light sessions too. An FAQ answer made the same claim and was corrected with the body. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/exercise-and-tinnitus

Correction: Best Earplugs to Prevent Tinnitus From Getting Worse

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said OSHA's general guidance is to halve an earplug's noise reduction rating for a realistic estimate of real-world protection, so that a 21 dB earplug gives 10 to 11 dB. OSHA uses the unadjusted rating to judge whether hearing protection is adequate; it subtracts 7 dB and then halves the result when considering whether an employer should also put engineering controls in place, which turns a 21 dB rating into 7 dB. Previously: OSHA's general guidance is to cut it roughly in half for a realistic real-world estimate, so a 21 dB-rated earplug is closer to 10-11 dB of actual protection with an average fit. … OSHA guidance is to derate the label by roughly half for a realistic estimate. A 21 dB-rated plug is closer to 10 or 11 dB with an average fit Now: According to its interpretation letter on the subject, OSHA uses the unadjusted NRR when judging whether hearing protection is adequate. When it is considering whether an employer should also put engineering controls in place, it subtracts 7 dB — the correction called for when noise is measured on the A-weighted scale — and then applies a further 50 percent safety factor: the (NRR − 7) ÷ 2 adjustment. Applied to a 21 dB earplug, that most conservative reading gives 7 dB. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, by reading the OSHA interpretation letter the page already cited, dated 16 December 2021. osha.gov returned an error to automated requests, so it was read in an archived copy. The letter says that under current enforcement policy OSHA uses the unadjusted NRR to assess the adequacy of hearing protection, and that its compliance staff apply a 50 percent safety factor, on top of the 7 dB subtraction called for with A-weighted measurements, when considering whether an employer should implement engineering controls; it states that the safety factor is not used when evaluating the adequacy of hearing protectors. It does not describe halving the label as an estimate of the protection a wearer gets. The FAQ answer made the same claim and was corrected with the body. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/best-earplugs-for-tinnitus-prevention

Correction: Driving and Tinnitus: Safety Considerations

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described directed attention, a concept from tinnitus management, as a category of activities that demand focused concentration where distraction risks real harm, with driving as the textbook example alongside operating power tools. The paper it cited defines directed attention as the strategy of distracting attention away from the tinnitus. Previously: Audiology literature on tinnitus management describes this using a specific clinical concept called directed attention — activities that demand focused concentration, where being distracted risks real harm. Driving is used as a textbook example of this alongside things like operating power tools, precisely because losing focus during it has real consequences. Now: Tinnitus management has a name for the counter-move: directed attention, the strategy of steering attention away from the tinnitus. A 2023 tutorial in the American Journal of Audiology examined the four major behavioural approaches to tinnitus — CBT, tinnitus retraining therapy, tinnitus activities treatment and progressive tinnitus management — and found that every one of them uses some form of it, with habituation as the goal. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The page's source for the concept is Henry, 2023, a tutorial in the American Journal of Audiology. It defines directed attention as the strategy of distracting attention away from the tinnitus, and habituation as learning to stop paying attention to stimuli that are irrelevant or meaningless; it examined four behavioural methods, CBT, tinnitus retraining therapy, tinnitus activities treatment and progressive tinnitus management, and found that all four use some form of directed attention in their counselling. The page had turned a counselling strategy into a list of risky activities, and then presented background sound in the car as following from that clinical guidance. Both the definition and that inference are gone, from the body and from the FAQ answers that repeated them. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/driving-and-tinnitus

Correction: Caffeine Withdrawal and Tinnitus Spikes

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said caffeine withdrawal had not been directly studied as a tinnitus trigger, and presented it as a plausible trigger resting on mechanism alone. A blinded crossover trial had tested it in 66 people with tinnitus and found that phased caffeine withdrawal did not change tinnitus severity, though it did cause significant withdrawal symptoms. Previously: there isn't a body of research that has specifically studied caffeine withdrawal as a tinnitus trigger the way there is for, say, noise exposure or ototoxic medications. This is a case of a well-established mechanism (withdrawal-related vasodilation) applied to a plausible target (a blood-flow-sensitive organ), not a confirmed, directly-studied cause-and-effect relationship. Now: Plausible is not the same as shown, and the studies that have looked at this directly point the other way on tinnitus severity. … Tinnitus severity, measured on the Tinnitus Questionnaire on days 1, 15 and 30, did not differ between caffeinated and decaffeinated days: the mean difference was −0.04 points (95% CI −1.99 to 1.93). What did appear were significant acute withdrawal symptoms. … So the honest reading is that a withdrawal-related spike has not been demonstrated, while the withdrawal symptoms themselves — headache, fatigue, irritability — are well documented Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The direct study the page said was missing is Claire, Stothart et al., 2010, in the International Journal of Audiology: a double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover trial in which 66 people with tinnitus who usually had at least 150 mg of caffeine a day had their tea and coffee replaced with blinded supplies for 30 days, with caffeine phased out during the trial. Tinnitus severity did not differ between caffeinated and decaffeinated days; significant acute withdrawal symptoms did appear, and the authors concluded that those acute effects might add to the burden of tinnitus. The page now reports the trial and its limits, since severity was measured on three set days and the withdrawal was phased rather than abrupt, and an FAQ answer that made the same claim was corrected with the body. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/caffeine-withdrawal-and-tinnitus

Correction: Earbuds and Headphones: The Real Volume and Time Limits

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article's description said over a billion young people are at risk of hearing loss from personal listening devices; in the meta-analysis behind that figure, the estimate for personal devices was 0.67 billion, and the figure above a billion was the one for loud entertainment venues. The page also said phones and tablets can reach 110 dB, enough to damage hearing in as little as five minutes, and that above 100 dB damage can begin after roughly 15 minutes, figures that came from no source it cited. Previously: Over a billion young people are at risk of hearing loss from personal listening devices. … Smartphones and tablets played through headphones or earbuds can reach up to 110 dB, a level capable of causing measurable hearing damage in as little as five minutes of exposure. Even at volumes above 100 dB, damage can begin after roughly 15 minutes. Now: Over a billion young people may be at risk of hearing loss from unsafe listening. … estimated that between 0.67 and 1.35 billion young people worldwide could be at risk of hearing loss from unsafe listening practices — which is where the widely quoted “over 1 billion” comes from. … Those upper rows are not hypothetical for earbud users. The Dillard review notes that people using personal listening devices commonly choose volumes as high as 105 dB — a level with an eight-minute weekly allowance. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. In Dillard, Arunda et al., 2022, the meta-analysis the page was built on, the number of young people estimated to be exposed to unsafe listening through personal devices is 0.665 billion and through loud entertainment venues 1.347 billion, which is where its range of 0.67 to 1.35 billion comes from. The time and volume figures appear neither in that review nor on the WHO Making Listening Safe page the article also cited. What the review does say is that people using personal listening devices commonly choose volumes as high as 105 dB. WHO's safe-listening guidance, now cited, expresses the limits as weekly allowances rather than a time for damage to begin: 20 minutes a week at 100 dB, 8 minutes at 105 dB and 2.5 minutes at 110 dB. The page now uses those figures, and the FAQ answer that repeated the old ones was corrected too. The same pass corrected how the page presented the review's 48% for loud entertainment venues, which sat beside its pooled 24% for personal devices as if it were pooled too: the authors report that their pooled venue estimate had limited certainty, and fitted a model of sound intensity and exposure time to arrive at 48.20%. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/earbuds-headphones-tinnitus-risk

Correction: Hunters and Shooters: Preventing Acoustic Trauma

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

Three figures on this page did not match the research: it said suppressors cut a gunshot's peak level by roughly 20 to 40 dB, that common centrefire rifles and pistols reach 160 to 170 dB, and that only 20 to 30% of hunters wear hearing protection consistently. Measured suppressor reductions were 17 to 24 dB at the shooter's ear in one study and 7 to 32 dB across conditions in another, most recreational firearms produce 150 to 165 dB peak, and the figure for hunters is that 70% to 80% never wear protection. Previously: Common centerfire rifles and pistols fall in the 160–170 dB range … Research on recreational firearm use found roughly half of target shooters wear hearing protection consistently, but only 20–30% of hunters do … Suppressors, where legal, reduce peak sound by roughly 20–40 dB — meaningful, though even a well-suppressed centerfire rifle often still exceeds or comes close to the 140 dB threshold Now: Most recreational firearms, leaving aside small-calibre .17 and .22 rifles and air rifles, produce 150 to 165 dB peak … Studies summarised by ASHA found that only about half of target shooters wear hearing protection all the time when practising, and 70% to 80% of hunters never wear it. … Measurements by NIOSH researchers found reductions of 17 to 24 dB at the shooter's ear, and a study of nine AR-15 rifles with 14 suppressors found 7 to 32 dB across conditions, with levels near the shooter's right ear staying above 140 dB peak in most combinations. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. NIOSH researchers (Murphy, Flamme et al., 2018) measured suppressor reductions at the shooter's ear of 17 to 24 dB peak, and concluded that firearm users should always wear hearing protection when target shooting or hunting. A study of nine AR-15 rifles and 14 suppressors (Lobarinas, Scott et al., 2016) found suppression of 7 to 32 dB across conditions, with levels near the user's right ear still above 140 dB peak under most of them. A 2017 review (Meinke, Finan et al.) puts peak levels from firearms at about 140 to 175 dB, with most recreational firearms, excluding small-calibre .17 and .22 rifles and air rifles, between 150 and 165 dB. ASHA's guidance on recreational firearm noise says only about half of target shooters wear hearing protection all the time when practising and 70% to 80% of hunters never wear it, which is not the same claim as 20 to 30% wearing it consistently. The page now lists all four as sources. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/hunters-shooters-acoustic-trauma

Correction: Hunters and Shooters: Preventing Acoustic Trauma

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article told readers that tinnitus or hearing loss worse in one ear, in someone who shoots or hunts, is an expected pattern and not a coincidence needing another explanation. One-sided or asymmetric tinnitus and asymmetric hearing loss are among the findings for which radiology guidance says an MRI is indicated, so a shooting history is a reason to mention the pattern, not a reason to stop looking. Previously: If your tinnitus or hearing loss is notably worse in one ear and you have a shooting or hunting history, this asymmetry is a recognizable and expected pattern, not a coincidence to explain another way. … that asymmetry is a recognisable, expected pattern rather than a coincidence needing another explanation. Now: If your tinnitus or hearing loss is notably worse on one side and you have a shooting or hunting history, that asymmetry is a recognised pattern. It is still worth reporting rather than explaining away yourself. European radiology recommendations list one-sided or asymmetric tinnitus, and asymmetric hearing loss, among the situations where an MRI is indicated, so the shooting history belongs in the conversation as information for the clinician, not as the conclusion. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The pattern itself is real: ASHA's guidance says hearing loss from shooting is often worse in the ear closer to the muzzle. But the 2025 practice recommendations of the European Society of Head and Neck Radiology (Verbist, Connor et al.) reserve MRI in non-pulsatile tinnitus for tinnitus that is unilateral or asymmetric, or that comes with focal neurological abnormalities or asymmetric hearing loss, and say that in unilateral non-pulsatile tinnitus an MRI should be performed to rule out retrocochlear disease. A shooting history does not remove that reason to look. The article, in both the body and an FAQ answer, now tells readers to report the asymmetry and links the imaging criteria. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/hunters-shooters-acoustic-trauma

Correction: New Parents and Tinnitus: Sleep Loss and a Louder-Seeming Ring

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said research on sleep-deprived participants found they heard measurably louder tinnitus than when well-rested, through raised excitability in the auditory cortex. Neither source it cited reports such a study or that mechanism; what they report are associations between poorer sleep and tinnitus, including higher loudness ratings, that cannot show which causes which. Previously: Research on sleep-deprived participants found they reported significantly louder tinnitus perception compared to when well-rested — a measurable, not just subjective, difference. The proposed mechanism is that sleep deprivation increases neural excitability specifically in the auditory cortex, essentially turning up the brain's own internal amplification of the tinnitus signal. … sleep loss measurably increases perceived loudness Now: Poor sleep and louder tinnitus clearly go together, but the evidence is correlational. Studies gathered in a 2022 review found that lighter and more disrupted sleep correlated with higher loudness ratings, and that tinnitus is often loudest in the morning. … What none of this settles is direction. These are correlations: poor sleep could make tinnitus louder, louder tinnitus could break up sleep, or both. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The article cited two sources. The first, a 2022 review of tinnitus and sleep in Brain Communications (Milinski, Nodal et al.), reports that longer time to fall asleep, lighter sleep and sleep disruption correlated with how loud people rated their tinnitus, and that loudness is often highest in the morning; it describes no study comparing the same people sleep-deprived and well-rested, and its own hypothesis runs partly the other way, proposing that high sleep pressure may temporarily suppress the phantom sound. The second, a 2024 analysis of US national survey data (Wang, Li et al.), found short and long sleep associated with higher odds of tinnitus in a cross-sectional sample. The body, description and FAQ now report those correlations and say plainly that the direction is not known. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/new-parents-sleep-deprivation-tinnitus

Correction: Sleeping With Tinnitus: Why Nights Are Worse and What Helps

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said research put clinically significant sleep disturbance among people with chronic tinnitus at roughly 50 to 70%. The range was not attributed to any study, and the review summarised by the page's own source found that most of its 16 studies reported insomnia above 40%, that 15 of them used inadequate definitions, and that the one study with a diagnostic assessment found 27%. Previously: This is a bigger problem than casual mentions of “tinnitus makes sleep harder” suggest: research places the rate of clinically significant sleep disturbance among people with chronic tinnitus at roughly 50–70%. Now: Sleep complaints are common with tinnitus, but how common depends heavily on how insomnia is measured. A 2018 review of 16 studies, summarised in a 2023 study of tinnitus-related insomnia, found that most reported insomnia in more than 40% of their tinnitus samples, but 15 of the 16 used variable and often inadequate definitions of insomnia; the one study that used a formal diagnostic assessment found 27%. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The page already cited Barry and Marks, 2023, a study of tinnitus-related insomnia whose introduction summarises a 2018 review (Asnis et al.): 15 of its 16 studies used variable and often inadequate assessment techniques and criteria to define insomnia, most reported insomnia above 40% in their tinnitus samples, and the remaining study, which used a diagnostic assessment, reported 27%. A figure of 50 to 70% for clinically significant disturbance overstated both the rate and the certainty. The page now gives those figures and explains why they differ. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/sleeping-with-tinnitus

Correction: When Your Doctor Dismisses Your Tinnitus: What to Do

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described being brushed off by doctors as a well-documented, widely reported experience, said patients in the research described appointments where tinnitus was barely discussed, and attributed a finding about poorly defined treatment discussions to general doctors. Its sources are three qualitative studies, two of them with five participants each, which do not measure how common the experience is or describe tinnitus being barely discussed, and the study of recorded consultations observed audiologists, audio-vestibular physicians and hearing therapists, not general practitioners. Previously: Studies specifically examining tinnitus patients' experience of medical consultations have found a consistent pattern … Some patients in this research described appointments where tinnitus was barely discussed at all, despite it being the reason for the visit. … research comparing different provider types found conversations around the actual treatment process were less clearly defined in encounters with general doctors and some audiologists … Feeling dismissed by a doctor when discussing tinnitus is a well-documented, common experience Now: The research on this is qualitative and small, but it describes the same thing from several angles. … None of this measures how common the experience is. … Talk about the treatment process was much less clearly defined in encounters with audiologists and doctors than with hearing therapists, who engaged more fully in active listening … The same study draws on earlier work showing that people with medically unexplained symptoms seek help to form an alliance with the clinician against the condition Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The 2018 study of video-recorded tinnitus consultations (Pryce, Hall et al.) lists its clinicians as hearing therapists, audiologists and audio-vestibular physicians, and finds talk about treatment much less clearly defined with audiologists and doctors than with hearing therapists; its patients had seen GPs earlier in their care, but no GP consultation was recorded. The article's point that patients seek an alliance with their clinician came from earlier work on medically unexplained conditions that the study cites, not from a finding about people with tinnitus. The other sources are a 2024 interview study of five people (Kajüter, Schaap et al.), two of them patients who wanted their GPs to acknowledge their condition more, and a 2020 narrative study of five patients (Erlandsson, Lundin & Dauman), one of whom felt abandoned and misunderstood by some health professionals. None of the three reports tinnitus being barely discussed or measures how often people feel dismissed. The page now describes each study for what it is. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/talking-to-doctor-who-dismisses-tinnitus

Correction: Tinnitus Disability Claims: A Guide by Country

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the VA proposed in 2023 to stop rating tinnitus as a standalone disability, in both the body and an FAQ answer. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on 15 February 2022. Previously: In 2023, the VA proposed reclassifying tinnitus as a symptom of an underlying condition rather than a separately compensable disability, which would change how new claims are evaluated. Now: In February 2022, the VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would delete Diagnostic Code 6260 and evaluate tinnitus only as part of its underlying condition, which would change how new claims are evaluated. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The proposed rule is Federal Register document 2022-02049, published on 15 February 2022, in which VA proposed to evaluate tinnitus only as part of its underlying pathology and to delete Diagnostic Code 6260 entirely, with a separate 10% for tinnitus tied to hearing loss only while that hearing loss is not itself compensable. The page had described the proposal without citing it; it now cites the proposed rule itself, and says what the proposal states about existing ratings, that they are governed by 38 CFR 3.951(a). The article's main point was right: the eCFR records no substantive amendment to 38 CFR 4.87 since 2017, so the proposal has not been adopted. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-disability-claims

Correction: Tinnitus and Focus: Managing Concentration at Work or School

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a 2026 study of 449 adults found 72% described tinnitus as making their working lives more difficult. The 72% was 223 of the 310 people who answered the study's open questions about work, and the study found that 81% of all 449 reported no change in their work patterns. Previously: a 2026 study of 449 adults with tinnitus found 72% described tinnitus as making their working lives more difficult, citing trouble concentrating, reduced productivity, and communication problems specifically Now: A 2026 study of 449 adults seeking internet-based CBT for tinnitus found that most, 81%, reported no change in their work patterns, but 7% had stopped working because of tinnitus and another 11% had reduced their hours. Of the 310 who answered open questions about work, 72% described ways tinnitus had affected how effectively they worked, with difficulty sustaining attention, fatigue and communication problems among the themes. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study, Beukes, Sharpe et al., 2026 in Brain Sciences, reports that 310 participants answered its open questions; 67 of them said they had not let tinnitus interfere with their work, 20 had found strategies to overcome it, and the remaining 223 (72%) described how it affected their effectiveness at work. Its figures for the whole sample are different: before the intervention, 81% reported no change in work patterns, 11% worked fewer hours and 7% had stopped working. The page now also says who the 449 were, people seeking to enrol in an internet-based psychological intervention rather than a general sample of adults with tinnitus, and that the improvement in work capacity among the 200 who completed the course came from comparing their scores before and after it, not from a controlled trial. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-and-focus

Correction: Tinnitus and Menopause: A Common but Under-Discussed Link

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article opened with an estimate, credited to an unnamed otolaryngologist, that up to 30% of women notice new or worsening tinnitus during the menopausal transition; the page gave no source for it and none could be traced, so it has been removed. It also described a US hearing-loss study as following over 47,000 nurses for 22 years, which merged two different figures from that study. Previously: one otolaryngologist specializing in the area has estimated up to 30% of women notice new or worsening tinnitus during the menopausal transition … a large US study following over 47,000 nurses over 22 years found women who used hormone therapy for five to ten years had a higher risk of hearing loss Now: Menopause can bring new or worsening tinnitus: falling and fluctuating estrogen is the leading explanation, and the poor sleep and anxiety menopause often brings add to it, though studies of hormone therapy point in both directions. … A US cohort of nurses followed from 1991 to 2013, whose hormone-therapy analysis included 47,360 postmenopausal women, found women who used oral hormone therapy for five to ten years had a higher risk of hearing loss than women who never used it Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The 30% figure named neither the clinician nor where the estimate appeared, and the review could not trace it to a source, so it could not be checked; it has been cut rather than replaced with another number. The nurses' study, which the page described without listing it, is Curhan, Eliassen et al., 2017 in Menopause: a prospective cohort of 80,972 women in the Nurses' Health Study II followed from 1991 to 2013, of whom 47,360 were included in the hormone-therapy analyses, and the higher risk it reports is for oral hormone therapy. The page now cites it, in the body and in an FAQ answer. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-and-menopause

Correction: Tinnitus Support Groups: Finding a Community

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said an evidence review of group 'education counselling' had found no clear difference in tinnitus severity, distress or loudness against no intervention, and concluded that support groups may not change tinnitus severity the way CBT or sound therapy are shown to. The page did not name or list that review, and the study it does cite points to a systematic review that found a moderate reduction in severity from audiologist-led groups. Previously: a separate evidence review of “education counselling” group approaches found no clear difference in tinnitus severity, distress, or loudness scores compared to no intervention at all, when measured against clinical outcome scales Now: Evidence that groups lower tinnitus severity scores is thinner and comes from clinician-led groups rather than peer support: the same authors cite a systematic review in which audiologist-led groups produced a moderate reduction in tinnitus severity, while noting that the quality of that evidence was limited by the lack of a consistent outcome measure. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The claim appeared in the body and in an FAQ answer, with no source a reader could check. The page's own source, Pryce, Moutela et al., 2019 in the British Journal of Health Psychology, cites a systematic review of clinician-led tinnitus management (Hoare, Kowalkowski, Kang and Hall, 2011) in which audiologist-led groups produced a moderate reduction in tinnitus severity, an effect size of 0.54 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.96), and adds that the quality of that evidence is compromised by the lack of a consistent outcome measure. The unsourced claim has been removed. The page's conclusion is unchanged in substance: the study it cites found the value of support groups lies mainly in belonging, shared knowledge and maintained hope, so they complement treatment rather than replace it. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-support-groups

Correction: Genetics and Tinnitus: What Twin and Family Studies Show

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the largest genome-wide study of tinnitus used UK Biobank data from over 150,000 participants; it analysed 596,905 people from UK Biobank and the US Million Veteran Program and identified 39 risk loci. It also described the Norwegian HUNT study as a smaller study of older twins that found a genetic contribution only in a small subgroup, when HUNT is a large family study that put an upper limit of 11% on heritability, with no difference between the sexes. Previously: The largest genome-wide association study to date, using UK Biobank data from over 150,000 participants, found tinnitus has a polygenic architecture … and identified several specific genetic locations associated with tinnitus risk, alongside a notable genetic overlap with hearing difficulty and psychiatric conditions like depression. … an earlier, smaller study (the Norwegian HUNT study, based on older twins) found low heritability overall, with a significant genetic contribution only detected in a small, specific subgroup. Now: The largest genome-wide association study to date, 596,905 people from UK Biobank and the US Million Veteran Program, identified 39 risk loci, each with a small effect, and found a genetic architecture that overlaps with hearing difficulty but is distinct from it, with genetic correlations to psychiatric conditions such as depression. … A large Norwegian population study (HUNT), comparing tinnitus between spouses, parents and children, and siblings, found family correlations so low that they put an upper limit of 11% on heritability, with no difference between the sexes. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The genome-wide study the page cited, Clifford, Maihofer et al., 2024 in Nature Communications, meta-analysed UK Biobank with the Million Veteran Program, 596,905 people in its cross-ancestry analysis, and reported 39 loci; the figure of over 150,000 fits the same group's earlier 2020 study of 172,995 UK Biobank participants. The page had also reported only the overlap with hearing difficulty, when the 2024 paper's title and conclusion are that tinnitus has a genetic architecture distinct from hearing loss. The HUNT study, Kvestad, Czajkowski et al., 2010, used a population-based sample of 12,940 spouses, 27,607 parent–offspring and 11,498 siblings, and its family correlations implied an upper limit for heritability of 0.11 with no sex differences. The page's description — older twins, and a genetic effect confined to a subgroup — fits a different study that the HUNT paper discusses: 478 pairs of Danish twins aged 70 to 100, which found a significant genetic effect in women only. Both the HUNT paper and the 2020 study are now among the page's sources. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/genetics-and-tinnitus

Correction: AI and Machine Learning in Tinnitus Care: Where It Stands

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a 2026 machine-learning study predicted which patients with hearing loss were at risk of developing moderate-to-severe tinnitus, rather than classifying tinnitus already present. It did the reverse: it was a retrospective, single-centre, cross-sectional analysis that identified which of 301 patients already had clinically significant tinnitus, and it could not say who would go on to develop it. Previously: Research published in early 2026 used machine learning to predict which patients with hearing loss are at risk of developing moderate-to-severe tinnitus, rather than classifying tinnitus already present. If it validates further, that kind of model could identify people worth monitoring more closely or intervening with earlier Now: It used the records of 301 people with hearing loss at one hospital, collected over a single period, and its best model identified who had clinically significant tinnitus with an area under the curve of 0.977 in its validation set. Its authors describe the design as retrospective, single-centre and cross-sectional: it identifies who already has significant tinnitus, and it cannot say who will go on to develop it. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The page described the study without citing it. It is Zhang, Ran et al., published online in Frontiers in Neurology in January 2026: it retrospectively enrolled 301 patients with hearing loss seen at one hospital between August 2024 and May 2025, and its outcome was the presence of clinically significant tinnitus, a Tinnitus Handicap Inventory score of 38 or more. Its authors set out the limits themselves: a retrospective, single-centre design, a cross-sectional analysis that prevents causal inference and long-term observation, and no external validation, so its performance in other groups of patients is uncertain. The study is now cited, and the page's example of predicting how tinnitus develops over time is a UK Biobank analysis whose severity model predicted how tinnitus progressed over nine years. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/ai-and-machine-learning-in-tinnitus-care

Correction: The State of Tinnitus: Global Data, Compiled and Sourced

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This reference page said every figure on it was linked to its original source at the point of use. None was linked where it was used, and one figure had no source on the page at all: the claim that personal listening devices and loud entertainment venues contribute in roughly equal measure to unsafe listening among young people, which the study behind it does not support. Previously: every number here traces back to a named study or health authority, linked in place … Every figure is linked to its original source at the point it is used, not collected in a general bibliography at the end … personal listening devices and loud entertainment venues contribute in roughly equal measure. Now: Each figure is attributed to its source where it is used, and every source is listed with a link at the foot of the page, so any number here can be checked against the study it came from. … It put exposure to unsafe listening through personal listening devices at about 24% of young people, and at loud entertainment venues at about 48% — the second a modelled estimate, because the pooled figure for venues was too uncertain to use. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The page named most of its sources in the text and listed them at the foot, but its body carried no links to them, so the promise it made in its opening paragraph, two FAQ answers and its maintenance note described a page it was not. The unsourced figure comes from Dillard, Arunda et al., 2022, a systematic review and meta-analysis in BMJ Global Health: it pooled exposure to unsafe listening from personal listening devices at 23.81%, reported limited certainty in its pooled estimate for loud entertainment venues, and fitted a model instead, which put that figure at 48.20%. The review is now listed, the venue figure is identified as modelled, and the page's description of its own sourcing says what it does. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/state-of-tinnitus-data

Correction: How to Find and Join a Tinnitus Clinical Trial

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The description of this article said well over 100 tinnitus clinical trials are recruiting worldwide at any time; on 26 September 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov listed 43 tinnitus studies as recruiting. The body and FAQ also gave three figures with no source: that roughly 30% of tinnitus trials include a placebo arm, that the average trial runs around 12 months, and that participants are commonly paid $50 to $100 per visit. Previously: Well over 100 tinnitus clinical trials are recruiting worldwide at any time … Roughly 30% of tinnitus trials include a placebo arm, according to industry tracking of active trials … The average tinnitus trial runs around 12 months, with check-ins roughly monthly … Many trials compensate participants for their time, commonly in the range of $50 to $100 per visit for typical Phase 2 to 4 trials Now: On 26 September 2026, a search for tinnitus returned 43 studies recruiting participants, 42 of them clinical trials. Another 28 were registered but not yet recruiting. … Of the 42 recruiting tinnitus clinical trials on the registry in late September 2026, 14 had a placebo or sham comparison arm. … ClinicalTrials.gov says some studies pay participants, by amounts that vary; many pay for the intervention being tested and for research-related tests and visits; and some cover research-related travel and lodging Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. A ClinicalTrials.gov search for tinnitus studies with the status recruiting returned 43 on that date, 42 of them clinical trials, with 28 more registered but not yet recruiting, so fewer than 100 even taken together. The 30% figure was credited only to unnamed industry tracking, and the 12-month and $50 to $100 figures had no attribution at all; none of the three appears on the American Tinnitus Association page the article cited. The placebo figure is replaced by a count from the registry itself, 14 of the 42 recruiting trials with a placebo or sham arm, which is close to the old figure but can now be checked. The average trial length has been removed, and payment is now described as ClinicalTrials.gov describes it: some studies pay, by amounts that vary, so it is a question to ask before enrolling. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/how-to-join-a-tinnitus-clinical-trial

Correction: How Tinnitus Is Measured: What THI and TFI Scores Mean

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The correction logged for this article on 21 September replaced the TFI developers' preliminary 13-point criterion with the 2025 anchor-based estimates of 9 points on the TFI and 11 on the THI, but two passages it did not reach still told readers to judge a result against thirteen. The closing checklist gave thirteen for the TFI and no figure for the THI, and the question the article asks readers to put to any claim of significant improvement named a threshold of thirteen. Previously: When you next read that something “significantly improved tinnitus”, the useful question is: by how many points, against a threshold of thirteen? … Against what threshold? Thirteen for the TFI. The THI has no single agreed equivalent, which is part of why the TFI was built. Now: When you next read that something “significantly improved tinnitus”, the useful question is: by how many points, against what threshold? The next section gives a better threshold than thirteen. … Against what threshold? About 9 points on the TFI and 11 on the THI, by the 2025 anchor-based estimate, and more for severe tinnitus or long follow-up. The TFI developers' preliminary criterion was 13. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The 21 September correction quoted and replaced the passage that presented 13 as the number to remember, and the page's FAQ and its section on the 2025 study already carried the new figures; the checklist at the foot of the page and the question just before that section were not changed with them, so the page went on telling readers to use the figure its own correction had retired. The study behind the correction, Engelke, Basso et al., 2025 in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, gives an anchor-based estimate for the THI as well as the TFI: after 12 weeks, 11 points, with estimates ranging from 7.8 to 12. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/how-tinnitus-is-measured

Correction: The Tinnitus Drugs You Read About: What Happened to Them

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article's summary stated that every compound developed specifically for tinnitus that had reported a controlled phase 2 result had failed its primary endpoint. Its sources report primary-endpoint results for two compounds, AM-101 and OTO-313, and none of them surveys the rest of the field, so the claim went further than the evidence the page rests on. Previously: Every compound developed specifically for tinnitus that has reported a controlled phase 2 result has failed its primary endpoint. Now: Both compounds on this page that reported a controlled phase 2 result in tinnitus failed their primary endpoint. … Of the three drugs on this page, the two tested in controlled tinnitus trials both failed: AM-101, an esketamine gel, missed its primary endpoint and OTO-313 did not beat placebo. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The page's sources are the AM-101 phase II trial (van de Heyning, Muehlmeier et al., 2014), which failed its primary endpoint of minimum masking level; the OTO-313 phase 2 trial (Searchfield, Robinson et al., 2023), which found no significant benefit over placebo; a 2022 review of ebselen by its developers; and a 2025 review of NMDA receptor antagonists (Che, Wu & Sun), which describes clinical trials of acamprosate, caroverine, neramexane and AM-101 as having shown promising results while noting that none is approved. None of them establishes a result for every compound developed for tinnitus, so the sentence now says only what the page can show. The two results it describes are unchanged. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-drugs-in-development

Correction: The Patterns That Make a Weak Tinnitus Result Look Strong

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article gave the smallest change on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory that people notice as 7 to 11 points, in its body, its checklist and two FAQ answers. The 2025 study that estimate comes from put it at 7.8 to 12 points, with a point estimate of 11, so the page's range ran lower than the study's own. Previously: The smallest change people reliably notice on that scale is estimated at 7 to 11 points … which on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory means somewhere around 7 to 11 points … How many points, and is that enough to notice? Roughly 7–11 on the THI. Now: A 2025 study estimated the smallest change people notice on that scale at about 8 to 12 points, with a point estimate of 11 … which on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory means somewhere around 8 to 12 points … How many points, and is that enough to notice? Roughly 8–12 on the THI. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Engelke, Basso et al., 2025, in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, report that for the THI the anchor-based estimates of the minimal clinically important difference ranged from 7.8 to 12, with a point estimate of 11 after 12 weeks. The page's range rounded the lower end down to 7 and stopped at the point estimate rather than the upper estimate of 12; this site's own correction of 21 September had already set out that the THI threshold is higher than 7. The study is now cited on the page, and the worked example it supports is unchanged in its conclusion: the 5.73-point result it discusses is below the threshold on either range. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/reading-a-tinnitus-study

Correction: Notable Tinnitus Studies: A Running Research Summary

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This running summary listed the UNITI trial of combined tinnitus treatments as still under way, and named it the ongoing trial that mattered most, when it had reported in Nature Communications in November 2025, before the page was written. It also said a drug targeting cochlear synaptopathy was now in US clinical trials, when the only such tinnitus trial on ClinicalTrials.gov had not begun recruiting. Previously: The UNITI trial is testing whether combining treatments beats any single one. … Results, once published, could meaningfully reshape standard treatment sequencing. … Which ongoing trial matters most practically? … Arguably UNITI, a large multi-center European trial designed specifically to compare combined treatment approaches against single-treatment protocols for chronic tinnitus. … Several tinnitus drug candidates remain in early-to-mid clinical trials, including a compound targeting cochlear synaptopathy (damage to the connection between hair cells and the auditory nerve) now in US clinical trials Now: UNITI randomised 461 people with chronic tinnitus, at five clinical sites in the EU, to one treatment or a combination of two for 12 weeks. … On the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, scores fell by 14.9 points with combination treatment against 11.7 with a single one (p = 0.034). The trial found no synergy. … Announcements, press releases, and trials that have not yet reported. A registered trial is a question rather than a result Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, when this page was rebuilt as a dated log of studies that have reported. The page cited UNITI's 2023 statistical analysis plan rather than its results. Those are Schoisswohl, Basso et al., published in Nature Communications on 21 November 2025: 461 participants randomised to single or combination treatment for 12 weeks, with THI scores falling by 11.7 points on single treatment and 14.9 on combination treatment (p = 0.034), and, in the authors' words, no clear synergistic effect but a compensatory one, in which a more effective treatment offsets a less effective one. Another article on this site, on where tinnitus research is headed, had already reported the result. The synaptopathy drug is Cilcare's CIL001: its trial, NCT07826507, was first posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 September 2026 and is listed as not yet recruiting, with a start date of January 2027. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/notable-tinnitus-studies

Correction: Where Tinnitus Research Is Headed: Clinical Trials to Watch

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article presented two drug candidates as being in active clinical trials for tinnitus: a drug for cochlear synaptopathy, said to have US trial sites including Massachusetts General Hospital, and anti-CGRP migraine drugs. The source it cited for the first said only that a trial was being prepared, and on 26 September 2026 neither drug's registered trial had begun recruiting. Previously: Drug candidates in active trials … One investigational drug, developed by a biopharmaceutical company with US trial sites including Massachusetts General Hospital, targets damage to the connection between the cochlea's hair cells and the auditory nerve … some researchers are testing medications with an established migraine track record — including CGRP-targeting drugs — for tinnitus specifically Now: The company announced a US trial with Massachusetts General Hospital in May 2026. Its registry entry describes a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b/2a trial of a single injection through the eardrum … It was registered in September 2026, not yet recruiting, with a planned start in January 2027. … A Stanford trial registered in 2026, COMPACT-PM, plans to compare anti-CGRP therapies with conventional migraine preventives … When it was registered in June 2026 it was not yet recruiting. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The article's source for the synaptopathy drug, a May 2026 report in The Hearing Review, says the company plans a clinical trial of CIL001 and is preparing one at Massachusetts General Hospital. Its ClinicalTrials.gov record, NCT07826507, was first posted on 17 September 2026 and lists the trial as not yet recruiting, with a start date of January 2027. The only tinnitus trial of anti-CGRP drugs on ClinicalTrials.gov, COMPACT-PM (NCT07655440), was first posted in June 2026 and was still not yet recruiting on 26 September. The page now gives each named candidate's stage as its registry record states it. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/where-tinnitus-research-is-headed

Correction: Ear Seeds and Auriculotherapy for Tinnitus: The Evidence

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article called a retrospective review of hospital records a trial and a controlled comparison, and described it as auricular acupressure against conventional therapy alone. The patients were not randomised, there was no sham treatment, and the acupressure group had the conventional therapy too, so what the study compared was acupressure added to methylcobalamin tablets against the tablets alone. Previously: A 100-patient trial found auricular acupressure outperformed conventional therapy alone for tinnitus loudness and severity. … One reasonably sized controlled comparison found they did, for structured auricular acupressure. … 48 receiving acupressure, 52 conventional therapy alone … What a real controlled comparison found … A real, statistically significant benefit over conventional therapy alone has been shown in a reasonably sized trial Now: A 100-patient retrospective study found ear acupressure plus conventional therapy beat conventional therapy alone. … All of them had the hospital's conventional therapy, four weeks of methylcobalamin (vitamin B12) tablets; 48 also had auricular point acupressure and 52 did not. … The patients were not randomised: the study was a retrospective analysis, and the groups were formed from the treatment each patient had already received, so whatever led some patients to have acupressure could also explain why they did better. There was no sham treatment, so the attention and expectation that come with an added hands-on therapy are part of what was measured. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study is Chen, Lv and Qi, 2025, in Noise & Health, and its title, which the page's own source list already carried, calls it a retrospective analysis. Its abstract says the records of 100 patients admitted to one hospital between June 2020 and June 2023 were divided according to the treatment they had received: methylcobalamin tablets for four weeks (52 patients), or the same tablets plus auricular point acupressure (48). The page now describes that design in its description, body and FAQ, and says what it cannot show: a difference between groups formed this way, with no sham, may come from whatever led patients to receive acupressure, or from the attention and expectation that come with it. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/auriculotherapy-ear-seeds-tinnitus

Correction: Acupuncture for Tinnitus: What the Research Says

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said acupuncture had never performed well against sham needling, and that every trial it discussed with a sham control had failed to find an effect. The 2012 systematic review it cites includes two small randomised trials in which a single scalp acupuncture session did beat a sham. Previously: When acupuncture was compared against sham acupuncture specifically … an early systematic review of nine randomised trials failed to show significant improvement. … and every trial on this page that used one failed to find an effect. … Taken together, the 2025 evidence on acupuncture for tinnitus is that it performs well against doing nothing and has never performed well against convincingly faked needling. Now: In an early systematic review of nine trials, five that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture … failed to show significant improvement, though two small trials of a single scalp session did beat a sham. … The exception was two small trials of a single, brief scalp acupuncture session, which beat a sham needled at non-acupuncture points on a scale of symptom relief. … and most of the sham-controlled trials in the reviews above found no effect. … Taken together, the 2025 evidence on acupuncture for tinnitus is that it performs well against doing nothing and has mostly not performed well against sham needling, the exceptions being two small trials of a single scalp session. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The review is Kim, Choi et al., 2012, in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Of its nine randomised trials, five compared acupuncture or electroacupuncture with sham acupuncture and failed to show significant improvement; two compared a short, one-time scalp acupuncture treatment with penetrating sham acupuncture at non-acupoints and found significant positive effects on a visual analogue scale of symptom relief. The page had reported the five and not the two. The review's own conclusion, that the number, size and quality of the trials were not sufficient for definitive conclusions, is unchanged, and so is the article's verdict that the question is unresolved; what was wrong was the claim that the sham comparison had never gone acupuncture's way. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/acupuncture-for-tinnitus

Correction: Acupuncture for Tinnitus: What the Research Says

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article contrasted acupuncture with the consistent, well-supported positive evidence it said CBT and bimodal neuromodulation both have. Bimodal neuromodulation does not have evidence of that kind: its pivotal trial had no separate control group and no sham, and found an advantage over sound alone only in a subgroup. Previously: but it also doesn't have the kind of consistent, well-supported positive evidence that CBT or bimodal neuromodulation have. Now: but it also doesn't have the kind of consistent, well-supported positive evidence that CBT has. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The pivotal trial behind Lenire's FDA authorisation, Boedts, Buechner et al., 2024, in Nature Communications, gave all 112 participants six weeks of sound alone followed by six weeks of bimodal treatment, each serving as their own control; bimodal treatment did better only among participants with moderate or more severe tinnitus, and the abstract says that advantage was not observed in the full cohort. As the site's device articles now record, no trial of the device has a sham arm. The site's two device articles were corrected for overstating that evidence on the same day, and this sentence, on a page about a different treatment, repeated the overstatement in passing. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/acupuncture-for-tinnitus

Correction: CBT for Tinnitus: What the Clinical Trials Show

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a meta-analysis of 15 trials found a moderate-to-large effect of CBT on tinnitus distress against both waitlist and active controls, holding up at follow-up. The meta-analysis found a smaller effect against active controls than against passive ones, and its follow-up result was measured within the CBT groups rather than against any control. Previously: A meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials covering 1,091 participants found a moderate-to-large effect on tinnitus-specific distress against both waitlist and active controls, holding up at follow-up. … found CBT produced a statistically significant, moderate-to-large effect on tinnitus-specific distress measures compared with both passive controls (waitlists) and active controls (other treatments), with effects holding up at follow-up rather than fading. Now: An earlier meta-analysis of 15 trials found effects against both passive and active controls, the larger against passive ones. … A 2011 meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials (1,091 participants) found statistically significant effects on tinnitus-specific distress against passive controls such as waitlists (Hedges' g = 0.70) and a smaller one against active controls (g = 0.44). Within the CBT groups, improvement from before treatment to follow-up appeared to be maintained. Its authors still urged caution, because few large, well-controlled trials had been done. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The meta-analysis is Hesser, Weise, Westin and Andersson, 2011, in Clinical Psychology Review. It reports Hedges' g of 0.70 against passive controls and 0.44 against active controls at the end of treatment; the second is below the conventional 0.5 mark for a medium effect, so 'moderate-to-large against both' overstated it. Its follow-up finding is the average pre-to-follow-up effect size within the CBT groups, which suggested the effects were maintained, not a comparison with controls. The same review added the 2020 Cochrane review of CBT for tinnitus, Fuller, Cima et al., which reports results only at the end of treatment because of an absence of evidence at 6 and 12 months; the page now says so. None of this changes CBT's standing as the best-supported treatment for tinnitus distress. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/cbt-for-tinnitus

Correction: CBD and Cannabis for Tinnitus: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a study of older adults using medical cannabis found tinnitus reported as an adverse effect more frequently with CBD-dominant products than THC-dominant ones, without citing the study. The study recorded three reports of tinnitus in all, too few to compare one product type with another. Previously: one study of older adults using medical cannabis found tinnitus reported as an adverse effect more frequently with CBD-dominant products than THC-dominant ones … one study of older adults using medical cannabis found tinnitus was a reported adverse effect more frequently with CBD-dominant products than THC-dominant ones. Now: In a study of older adults using medical cannabis, tinnitus was among the most frequent adverse events, with two of its three reports from people on CBD-dominant products — too few cases to rank one product type against another. … recorded tinnitus as one of its most frequent adverse events: three reports, two from people using CBD-dominant products, one from a balanced product and none among the eight people on THC-dominant products. Three cases cannot rank one product type against another Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study is MacNair, Kalaba et al., 2022, in the Journal of Cannabis Research, an observational study of older adults legally authorised a medical cannabis product. Its adverse-event table lists three reports of tinnitus: two among people on CBD-dominant products, one on a balanced product and none on THC-dominant products, which made up 4.4% of the products authorised. The raw count points the way the page said, but three cases with no statistical comparison cannot show that tinnitus is more frequent with one product type than another. The page now cites the study, gives the counts, and reports both the authors' conclusion that tinnitus stood out as an adverse event worth investigating further and their employment by the cannabis producer Canopy Growth and by Santé Cannabis. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/cbd-cannabis-and-tinnitus

Correction: Chiropractic Care and Tinnitus: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article gave the result of a 1999 case series as 14 of 28 patients (52%), when 14 of 28 is 50%, and called it real evidence that intervening at the level of the neck can affect tinnitus. A case series with no control group cannot show that the treatment caused the improvement. Previously: found tinnitus improved in 14 of 28 patients (52%). That is real evidence that intervening at the level of the neck can affect tinnitus in at least some people … found tinnitus improved in 14 of them (52%). Now: found tinnitus improved in 14 of 28 patients. That suggests intervening at the level of the neck may affect tinnitus in some people, but it comes from a 1999 case series with no control group, so it cannot separate the nerve block from time or expectation. … found tinnitus improved in 14 of them, with no control group for comparison. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study is Matsushima, Sakai et al., 1999, in the International Tinnitus Journal, a report on 28 tinnitus patients given greater occipital nerve block. Its abstract gives the result as “14 (52%) of 28”; the percentage is the abstract's own arithmetic slip, and the page had copied it into both the body and an FAQ answer. The study has no untreated comparison group, so it can show that tinnitus improved in half the patients after the block, not that the block caused it. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/chiropractic-care-and-tinnitus

Correction: Cochlear Implants and Tinnitus: What Patients Report

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the evidence that cochlear implants reduce tinnitus concerned single-sided deafness specifically, and listed asymmetric hearing loss among the situations where an implant is not proposed. The 2021 systematic review it cited was of people implanted because of their tinnitus, every one of whom had asymmetric hearing loss or single-sided deafness, and tinnitus relief is also documented in people implanted for sensorineural hearing loss more widely. Previously: The evidence concerns single-sided deafness specifically — profound hearing loss in one ear with normal or near-normal hearing in the other … It is not proposed as an option for typical tinnitus in both ears with milder or asymmetric hearing loss. … This isn't a general tinnitus treatment — the evidence specifically concerns single-sided deafness … It's not proposed as an option for typical bilateral tinnitus with milder or asymmetric hearing loss. Now: The evidence comes from people who meet implant candidacy criteria — single-sided deafness, or severe-to-profound hearing loss that hearing aids no longer help enough … It is not proposed as an option for typical tinnitus with milder hearing loss. … A 2021 systematic review looked specifically at people implanted because of severe tinnitus — seven prospective cohort studies with 105 people in all, between 10 and 26 each, every one of them with asymmetric hearing loss or single-sided deafness. … A 2024 meta-analysis of 28 studies and 853 people with sensorineural hearing loss who received implants found Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores fell by 14.02 points on average Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The 2021 review, Assouly, van Heteren et al., in Progress in Brain Research, was already in the page's source list. It included seven prospective cohort studies, 105 people in all, implanted primarily because of tinnitus, and states that all of them had asymmetrical hearing loss or single-sided deafness; its background notes that tinnitus reduction is commonly reported after implantation for severe-to-profound hearing loss. A 2024 meta-analysis, Li, Yang et al., in Diagnostics, now cited, pooled 28 studies and 853 people with sensorineural hearing loss and found Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores fell by 14.02 points on average, while noting the effect may diminish over time. The page's point that an implant is not a treatment for typical tinnitus with milder hearing loss stands; the line it drew around the evidence was too narrow, and it excluded a group the evidence includes. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/cochlear-implants-and-tinnitus

Correction: Does Ginkgo Biloba Help Tinnitus? Reviewing the Evidence

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described an American Family Physician summary as a separate evidence review that reached the same bottom line as the 2004 trial and meta-analysis it had just reported. It was a summary of that same paper, so one finding was presented as two. Previously: A separate evidence review reached the same bottom line, describing the existing trials as showing no meaningful benefit over placebo despite over 1,000 participants across six trials. Now: American Family Physician's evidence summary of that paper put the bottom line plainly: no evidence from six randomised trials of more than 1,000 patients that ginkgo biloba is an effective therapy for tinnitus. Why: Found in the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The summary, by Mark Ebell in American Family Physician in September 2004, is a synopsis of a single paper, Rejali, Sivakumar and Balaji, 2004, which is the trial and six-trial meta-analysis described in the paragraph before it; its bottom line restates that paper's result rather than reaching it independently. The article's conclusion does not change. The same review added the two Cochrane reviews of ginkgo for tinnitus, from 2013 and 2022, which are independent syntheses: the first found the limited evidence did not demonstrate that ginkgo is effective when tinnitus is the main complaint, and the second found the benefits and harms uncertain. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/ginkgo-biloba-for-tinnitus

Correction: PEMF Therapy for Tinnitus: What the Controlled Trials Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described a 2004 trial as the only properly controlled evidence on PEMF for tinnitus, and the positive reports as older studies with no placebo group. In fact a 1993 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 58 people had reported a benefit, so the controlled evidence is two small trials that point in opposite directions, not one negative trial. Previously: The one rigorous trial says no. … Because older, less rigorous research — including a 2005 publication in the International Tinnitus Journal — reported positive results, in some cases improvement within days. … The one properly controlled trial specific to tinnitus found no benefit over placebo — this is meaningfully stronger, more trustworthy evidence than the older uncontrolled reports claiming benefit Now: 1993: positive, on a simple measure. A pilot trial in Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences recruited 58 volunteers … Active and placebo devices … were randomly allocated and the trial was double-blind. … Among those who completed the trial, 45% improved with the active device against 9% with placebo (P = 0.0013). … Between them, the weight falls on the 2004 trial. … So the honest summary is that PEMF for tinnitus is unproven, and the better-measured evidence points to no benefit. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. The trial is Roland, Hughes et al., 1993, in Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences. Fifty-eight volunteers from the Liverpool Tinnitus Association were randomly allocated active or placebo devices, double-blind. After one week each patient rated their tinnitus as gone, improved, unchanged or worse, and 45% of those who completed the trial improved with the active device against 9% with placebo (P = 0.0013). The page now describes both trials and explains why the 2004 trial (Ghossaini, Spitzer et al.) carries more weight: a month of treatment, measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and hearing tests rather than a one-week self-rating. The overall reading, that PEMF for tinnitus is unproven, did not change. Rereading the 2004 paper also showed that it reports no significant before-to-after change within either group, not a comparison between the groups, and the page now says so. Two other pages had cited PEMF as an example of a well-designed trial finding nothing while uncontrolled studies found benefit. That example has been removed from both: When a Treatment Has No Page Here: Checking It Yourself, and What Happens If You Do Nothing: The Number Every Uncontrolled Study Ignores. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/pemf-therapy-for-tinnitus

Correction: Neurofeedback for Tinnitus: What the EEG and fMRI Studies Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article called a 24-patient neurofeedback study well-designed, described its six-month result as real, lasting evidence of reduced distress, and told readers to expect a benefit on distress. That study had no control group and its fall was under five points on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. The article also left out that a 94-patient randomised trial found neurofeedback no better than a minimal intervention on distress. Previously: A 24-patient study found neurofeedback cut tinnitus distress for six months, though the loudness benefit faded. … What a well-designed study found … remained meaningfully reduced at 6-month follow-up (24.75) — a genuinely durable result for a hard-to-treat symptom … Expect a distress-focused benefit more confidently than a loudness-focused one, based on the clearest available follow-up data … Neurofeedback for tinnitus has real evidence behind it Now: the drop was about five points — statistically significant, but smaller than the change patients typically notice … And there was no control group. The authors name the lack of a placebo control as a limitation of their study … On distress, measured with the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, there was no difference between the groups over time. Neither kind of neurofeedback did better than the minimal intervention. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. The study is Güntensperger, Thüring et al., 2019. Twenty-six people took part and 24 were analysed, and each person's scores were compared before and after 15 weekly sessions with no comparison group, a limitation the authors acknowledge. The average THI score went from 29.33 to 24.75 at six months, a fall of under five points. Engelke, Basso et al., 2025 estimate the smallest change patients notice on that scale at 7.8 to 12 points, with a point estimate of 11. The randomised trial is Jensen, Alanis et al., 2023, in Brain Communications. It assigned 94 people to alpha/delta neurofeedback, beta/theta neurofeedback or a minimal intervention with no neurofeedback, and found no interaction effect on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Both kinds of neurofeedback did reduce rated intensity on the Tinnitus Magnitude Index. The page had described that trial only as a comparison of training protocols against each other, and reported only its intensity finding. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/neurofeedback-for-tinnitus

Correction: Neurofeedback for Tinnitus: What the EEG and fMRI Studies Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

In weighing a 2024 trial in which fMRI neurofeedback beat CBT, this article said the trial's CBT arm had badly underperformed the CBT literature. As its benchmark it cited a review of 28 randomised trials, which it said concluded CBT was the one tinnitus treatment with a reasonably established moderate effect. That review, the Cochrane review of CBT for tinnitus, concludes only that CBT may be effective and reports no evidence at 6 or 12 months, so it gives no benchmark for the arm's twelve-month result to fall short of. Previously: The CBT arm underperformed its own literature badly. A four-point improvement at twelve months, and no significant movement on any secondary measure, is not what CBT usually does — a systematic review of 28 randomised trials concluded it was the one tinnitus treatment with a reasonably established moderate effect. … The CBT arm also did far worse than CBT normally does, which is a reason to look hard at that arm. Now: The CBT arm faded. Its 12-point improvement at six months had shrunk to 4 points by twelve, and none of its secondary measures moved significantly. For comparison, the Cochrane review of 28 randomised trials of CBT found it reduced tinnitus impact by the equivalent of 10.91 THI points more than no treatment at the end of treatment, though it had no usable data at twelve months to set the later figure against. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. The review is Fuller, Cima et al., 2020. It included 28 studies with 2,733 participants and reports results only at the end of treatment, because there was no evidence at 6 or 12 months. Against no intervention, CBT may reduce the impact of tinnitus by the equivalent of 10.91 points on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, on low-certainty evidence. The authors conclude that CBT may be effective in reducing the negative impact of tinnitus on quality of life. The trial, Gninenko, Trznadel et al., 2024, reports the CBT group's THI falling 12.09 points at six months and 4 points at twelve. The page now describes the CBT arm as fading between six and twelve months, which is what the trial shows. Its other reasons for caution are unchanged: unequal numbers and formats of sessions, only 43 participants, and a treatment that needs an MRI scanner. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/neurofeedback-for-tinnitus

Correction: Steroid Injections for Tinnitus: A Lesson in Study Design

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article got three details wrong. It gave a Japanese series' 75% improvement rate as a share of ears rather than of patients. It counted the four prospective studies in the review's qualitative synthesis among studies without a proper comparison group, when the review says they had controls. And it called intratympanic steroids standard first-line care for sudden hearing loss, which is not how the guideline for that condition ranks them. Previously: One frequently cited study found tinnitus improved in 75% of ears immediately after treatment and in 68% at six months. … The same review's broader qualitative synthesis, including the less rigorous prospective and retrospective studies, continued to show positive-sounding results — reinforcing that the dramatic-sounding numbers largely came from studies without a proper comparison group. … where they are standard first-line care and timing matters Now: One frequently cited Japanese series, covering more than 3,000 patients, reported tinnitus improving in 75% of patients immediately after treatment and in 68% at six months. … Seven retrospective studies without controls reported improvement rates ranging from 35.9% to 91.3%. Four prospective studies with controls suggested the injection might help when combined with other drugs, which the authors flagged for further research. … Intratympanic steroids have a separate and much better-supported role in sudden sensorineural hearing loss, where timing matters. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. Sakata, Ito and Itoh, 1997, evaluated 3,978 ears of 3,041 patients and report that tinnitus improved in 75% of these patients immediately after treatment and in 68% after six months. Chung, Lee et al., 2022 divide their qualitative synthesis into two groups. Seven retrospective studies without controls reported improvement rates of 35.9% to 91.3%. In four prospective studies with controls, the injection seemed effective when combined with other drugs, a lead the authors say needs more systematic research. The 2019 AAO-HNS sudden hearing loss guideline (Chandrasekhar, Tsai Do et al.) recommends offering intratympanic steroids when recovery is incomplete 2 to 6 weeks after onset, and lists corticosteroids as initial therapy only as an option. The article's conclusion was right and has not changed: injection alone did not beat placebo in the four double-blind trials the meta-analysis pooled. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/intratympanic-steroid-injections-for-tinnitus

Correction: Mindfulness and Acceptance-Based Therapy for Tinnitus

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said a 2022 systematic review of mindfulness-based and acceptance-based therapies found supportive evidence for reducing distress and improving quality of life. The review found no evidence of improvement in quality of life and a benefit on distress only in the short term, and it concluded that the evidence was insufficient to recommend these therapies. Previously: ACT significantly outperformed TRT on tinnitus impact, with a notably large effect size … A systematic review and meta-analysis of third-wave therapies (mindfulness-based interventions and ACT together) across hearing-related distress conditions found supportive evidence for reducing distress and improving quality of life, consistent with the individual trial above Now: They randomised 64 people with normal hearing and tinnitus to one of three arms: ACT, tinnitus retraining therapy, or a waiting list. … Against TRT, across all the assessment points, ACT did better on tinnitus impact (d = 0.75) and on sleep problems. … But the gains were either not maintained or not examined at follow-up, there was no evidence of improvement in quality of life, and the studies were mostly of poor to moderate quality with small samples. The authors' conclusion is that the evidence is insufficient to recommend these therapies generally, with some evidence that they help tinnitus distress in the short term. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. The review is Wang, Gould et al., 2022, in the American Journal of Audiology, and the page cited it. It covered 15 studies with 750 people, mostly of poor to moderate quality. In people with tinnitus it found significant improvements in hearing-related distress at the end of treatment, but those gains were either not maintained or not examined at follow-up, and there was no evidence for improvements in quality of life. Its conclusion is that there is at present insufficient evidence to recommend these interventions, with some evidence that they help tinnitus distress in the short term. The same re-check tightened the page's account of the trial it called consistent with that review, Westin, Schulin et al., 2011. All 64 participants had normal hearing, which the page had not said. The effect size the paper reports for ACT against tinnitus retraining therapy is d = 0.75; the larger figure, d = 1.04, was against the waiting list. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/mindfulness-and-act-for-tinnitus

Correction: Hearing Aids for Tinnitus Relief: A Practical Guide

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article advised people getting hearing aids for tinnitus to have their tinnitus pitch measured so that amplification could be tuned to it. It also said a professional fitting tends to do better for tinnitus because it can be tuned to that pitch. A randomised trial that tested pitch-specific settings found them no better for tinnitus than conventional amplification, and worse for speech. Previously: If tinnitus relief is the goal, the approach changes: your tinnitus pitch and loudness get measured so amplification can be tuned to the relevant frequency range … Precise measurement of your tinnitus pitch and loudness, so amplification can be tuned to the frequency range most relevant to your tinnitus, not just your measured hearing loss … a professional fitting tends to produce better results for tinnitus specifically, since it can be tuned to your individual pitch and loss pattern rather than a generic profile Now: A verified fitting — real-ear or probe-microphone measurements that check the aids deliver the amplification your hearing loss calls for … Changing the amplification at your tinnitus pitch does not appear to add anything. A 2026 multicentre trial randomised 108 adults to conventional, objectively verified amplification, to extra gain at the tinnitus pitch, or to a "notch" that removed gain there. Tinnitus distress fell in all three groups with no difference between them, and conventional amplification gave the most speech benefit Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. The trial is Waechter, Timmer et al., 2026, in the International Journal of Audiology. It randomised 108 adults with chronic tinnitus, 36 to each arm, to hearing aids giving objectively verified conventional amplification, increased gain at the tinnitus pitch, or no gain at the tinnitus pitch (notch therapy). Tinnitus distress fell significantly in all three groups. The groups did not differ significantly on any outcome except speech, where conventional amplification gave more benefit than either pitch-based setting. The authors recommend conventional, objectively verified amplification for tinnitus patients. This site's notched sound therapy page already described the trial. The fitting advice now asks for verification with real-ear measurements instead, and says that special gain settings at the tinnitus pitch are not needed. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/hearing-aids-for-tinnitus

Correction: Notched Sound Therapy: An Elegant Mechanism, and Trials That Cannot Find the Notch

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The article's description still called the comparison of notched with ordinary music decisive and said that it finds no difference. The body had been corrected on 21 September to say the question is unsettled, after a 2025 meta-analysis found a marginal difference in favour of the notch, but the description had not been corrected with it. Previously: The decisive comparison — notched music against ordinary music — finds no difference. Now: Remove your tinnitus frequency from music you like and listen for months. The original trial had eight people per arm, and against ordinary music, most comparisons find the notch adds nothing. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which one agent re-checked every article against its sources and a second agent then fact-checked it. The 21 September correction changed the section heading that had called this comparison the one that decides it, and the body now says the question is unsettled. The description made the same claim in different words and was not changed along with the heading. The meta-analysis is Jiang, Zheng et al., 2025, in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. Pooling 14 randomised trials and 793 patients, it found notched music therapy better than conventional music therapy on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory after three months (mean difference −8.62, 95% CI −17.01 to −0.23, P = 0.044). The other comparisons the page describes, a 2021 double-blind trial of 104 patients and two 2024 meta-analyses, found no significant difference. The description now says that most comparisons find the notch adds nothing, rather than that the question is decided. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/notched-sound-therapy-for-tinnitus

Correction: The VA/DoD Tinnitus Guideline (2024), in Plain English

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said the VA/DoD guideline made nine recommendations weakly for and twelve where the evidence was insufficient; it made ten and eleven. The recommendation for a multidisciplinary approach where tinnitus comes with a jaw or neck disorder is graded weak for, and the article described it in a section of its own but left it out of the weak-for count and list. Previously: Nine things weakly for, four weakly against, and twelve where it says the evidence is insufficient to recommend either way. … Nine recommendations are weak for — meaning the balance of evidence favours them, without the certainty to insist … Twelve recommendations say there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against Now: Ten things weakly for, four weakly against, and eleven where it says the evidence is insufficient to recommend either way. … Ten recommendations are weak for — meaning the balance of evidence favours them, without the certainty to insist … 10. A multidisciplinary approach where bothersome tinnitus comes with a jaw disorder, neck dysfunction or both … Eleven recommendations say there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. Table 2 of the guideline's provider summary grades recommendations 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 22 weak for; 2, 21, 24 and 25 weak against; and the remaining eleven neither for nor against. Recommendation 22 is the multidisciplinary approach to tinnitus with temporomandibular disorder, cervical spine dysfunction or both. The page's own lists already showed the problem: the FAQ answer named all ten weak-for recommendations while calling them nine, and the insufficient-evidence list introduced as twelve had eleven entries. Each recommendation was described correctly; the counts were wrong. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/va-dod-tinnitus-guideline

Correction: Vagus Nerve Stimulation and Tinnitus: An Emerging Approach

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article reported a randomised pilot trial of implanted vagus nerve stimulation as finding that the group receiving paired stimulation improved significantly, when that improvement was against the group's own starting point: the difference between the paired and control groups, 10.3%, was not statistically significant, and the one-year response rate came after the control group had switched to paired stimulation too. It also said the approach had real mechanistic backing from both animal and human studies, while the scoping review it cited says the animal work comes from a single research team and has not been independently replicated, and that no reliable human study exists yet. Previously: A larger, randomized, double-blind pilot study (30 implanted participants) found the group receiving properly paired VNS improved significantly on tinnitus handicap scores, with about half showing a clinically meaningful response at both 6 weeks and one year … This is a genuinely promising research direction, with real mechanistic backing from both animal and human studies Now: The paired group's Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores improved significantly from where they started; the control group's did not. … The difference between the two groups, 10.3%, was not statistically significant. That is the comparison a randomised trial exists to make. … 50% of the paired group had a clinically meaningful improvement at six weeks, against 28% of controls. At one year, after everyone had received paired stimulation, 50% of participants had a clinically meaningful response. … The animal studies replicating the original finding all come from the same group of authors, and no independent team has reproduced them. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The trial's abstract (Tyler, Cacace et al., 2017, Scientific Reports) reports the paired group's improvement on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory at p = 0.0012 and the control group's at p = 0.1561, and the difference between them as 10.3%, p = 0.3393; after six weeks, all participants received paired stimulation. The 2021 scoping review the page already cited (Yakunina & Nam) states that every study replicating the animal findings comes from the same group of authors, that no independent replication exists, and that no reliable study of implanted or non-invasive VNS for tinnitus exists yet, because all have major flaws. Rereading the trial also turned up what the page had left out: two participants had vocal-cord paralysis after the implant surgery lasting more than 12 weeks, in one of whom it did not fully recover, and several of the authors worked for, or consulted for, the device maker. The page now reports both. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/vagus-nerve-stimulation-for-tinnitus

Correction: Sound Therapy for Tinnitus: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

An FAQ answer on this page said a 2024 meta-analysis pooling several trials found notched sound therapy had a measurable effect on tinnitus loudness at three months. Neither 2024 meta-analysis reports that: one found no significant effect on tinnitus handicap and had too few studies to pool its other outcomes, and the other found no difference from ordinary music. Previously: The evidence is mixed but real. … A larger 2024 meta-analysis pooling multiple trials found a measurable effect on loudness at 3 months, but no significant improvement in overall tinnitus-related distress compared to just listening to regular music. Now: The evidence is mixed. … Two 2024 meta-analyses found no significant effect on tinnitus handicap, and one found no difference from ordinary music. A 2025 meta-analysis of 14 trials and 793 patients did find notched music better than conventional music at three months, but only just (P = 0.044). Whether the notch itself adds anything is unsettled. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The body of the page described both 2024 meta-analyses correctly; the FAQ answer, which search results and the page's structured data quote on its own, did not. Tavanai, Rahimi et al., 2024 found no statistically significant effect on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory after three or six months, and had too few studies to meta-analyse its visual analogue scale outcomes. Alfonso, Mario et al., 2024 found no significant difference in tinnitus distress between notched music and listening to music, across 99 patients on notched music and 109 in comparison groups. A 2025 meta-analysis, now also cited (Jiang, Zheng et al.), found notched music ahead of conventional music at three months on both loudness and the handicap score, so the answer's split, loudness yes and distress no, is not what any of the three reports. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/sound-therapy-for-tinnitus

Correction: When Tinnitus Treatments Don't Work: Managing Expectations

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said individual characteristics explained on average only about 2% of whether a tinnitus treatment worked, in a study of over 5,000 patients, and drew from that how little can be predicted. The 2% was the average for each characteristic taken on its own, with all thirteen predictors together, including how long the treatment was used, explaining about 16%; and the analysis covered 2,916 people, not over 5,000, with outcomes they reported themselves. Previously: A large crowdsourced study analyzing outcomes across 25 different tinnitus treatments in over 5,000 patients found that individual characteristics — age, tinnitus duration, severity, and similar factors — explained on average only about 2% of the variance in whether a given treatment worked for a given person. Now: A large crowdsourced survey collected answers from 5,017 people with tinnitus and analysed self-reported outcomes of 25 different treatments from the 2,916 who had tried at least one. It found that each individual characteristic — age, tinnitus pitch, hearing loss, and similar factors — explained on average only about 2% of the variance in whether a given treatment worked for a given person. Even all of them combined, with how long the treatment was used, explained only about 16%. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The study (Simoes, Neff et al., 2019, Frontiers in Public Health) tested each of 13 predictors against treatment outcome on its own and then all of them together: individual predictors explained on average 2% of the variance, and the combined model explained on average 16%. Its survey, run through the Tinnitus Hub web platform, collected answers from 5,017 people, of whom 2,916 reported trying at least one treatment and were included in the analysis. The article's point survives the correction, since most of the variation in who responds still cannot be predicted, but it had presented a per-characteristic average as the total. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/when-tinnitus-treatments-dont-work

Correction: Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT): How It Works

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described a 2014 systematic review as comparing TRT with CBT directly and finding neither clearly better, when none of the nine trials it included compared the two: eight tested CBT against no treatment and one tested TRT against masking. A bolded line also said the comparison behind Cochrane's 2010 finding for TRT over masking had been reversed, when the later review found only that TRT was not superior to masking. Previously: A separate systematic review comparing TRT directly with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) found both improved quality-of-life scores, with neither clearly outperforming the other … A systematic review comparing them directly found both improved quality-of-life scores … Fifteen years later, the comparison it rested on has been reversed. Now: A 2014 systematic review of TRT and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) found both improved quality-of-life scores, with neither demonstrably superior — though CBT showed an additional benefit on depression scores. None of its nine trials compared the two head to head: eight tested CBT against no treatment, and one tested TRT against masking. … Fifteen years later, the comparison it rested on has not held up. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The review's abstract (Grewal, Spielmann et al., 2014, The Journal of Laryngology and Otology) states that of its nine included studies, eight assessed CBT against a no-treatment control and one compared TRT with tinnitus masking, so its conclusion that neither therapy was demonstrably superior sets separate results side by side rather than reporting a comparison between them. The 2025 review of 15 randomised trials (Alashram) found that TRT did not provide superior effects compared with masking or six other comparators: no advantage for TRT, which is not the same as an advantage for masking. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/tinnitus-retraining-therapy

Correction: Stellate Ganglion Block for Tinnitus: Strong Numbers, Below the Threshold

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article described the 7-point responder cut-off used by one device trial as the field's working estimate of the smallest change a patient notices on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, in the body and in two FAQ answers. It was a definition chosen for that trial, not a measurement of what patients notice; the anchor-based estimate the page also quoted puts that change at 11 points. Previously: The THI change is smaller than every published threshold for a change a patient notices — the 7-point responder definition used by the pivotal bimodal-device trial … That figure is the field's working estimate of the smallest change a patient actually registers. … less than the amount the field treats as the smallest change a person actually notices Now: That was a definition chosen for one trial rather than a measurement of what patients notice — but no available estimate of a noticeable change is lower. … A 2025 multi-centre study anchoring the threshold to patients' own reports of improvement put the minimal clinically important difference on the THI at 11 points, with a range of 7.8 to 12. … the typical patient's score moved by less than any available estimate of a change a person notices. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. This site corrected the thresholds it measures treatments against on 21 September, in an entry logged that day: the THI's 7 points was one trial's responder definition, and a 2025 multi-centre study by Engelke, Basso et al. in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, anchored to patients' own ratings of improvement, put the minimal clinically important difference at 11 points (range 7.8 to 12). That change added the 11-point estimate to this page but left in place the sentences describing 7 as the field's estimate. The verdict does not change: 5.73 points is below both figures, and further below the 11-point one. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/stellate-ganglion-block-for-tinnitus

Correction: Tinnitus Treatments Compared: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The comparison labelled every VA/DoD 2024 position on seven treatments 'Recommended' or 'Recommended against', but none of that guideline's recommendations is strong: each one for or against is a weak 'we suggest'. It also labelled sound therapy's AAO-HNS 2014 position 'Recommended', directly above wording that correctly called it an option, a tier below a recommendation. Previously: VA/DoD 2024 · Recommended … Suggests CBT by a trained provider for adults with bothersome tinnitus (weak for). … VA/DoD 2024 · Recommended against … Suggests against dietary or herbal supplements and nutraceuticals for tinnitus management. … AAO-HNS 2014 · Recommended … Listed as an option: clinicians may recommend sound therapy. A tier below the recommendation given to CBT. Now: VA/DoD 2024 · Suggested (weak) … VA/DoD 2024 · Suggested against (weak) … AAO-HNS 2014 · Option (may recommend) … Listed as an option: clinicians may recommend sound therapy. A tier below the recommendation given to CBT. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, when the comparison's guideline column was checked against each guideline's own wording. The June 2024 VA/DoD provider summary says its work group did not have the evidence to make strong recommendations, and each of its 25 statements is weak for, weak against, or neither for nor against. Tunkel, Bauer et al., 2014, the AAO-HNS guideline, list sound therapy among the options clinicians 'may' offer, apart from the recommendations clinicians 'should' follow, which include cognitive behavioral therapy. Both guidelines and both grades of statement had shared one set of labels. Each guideline's positions are now labelled in its own terms. The labels had been on the page since the guideline column was added on 5 September 2026. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/treatments/compare

Correction: Tinnitus Treatments Compared: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The comparison said the VA/DoD 2024 guideline does not name tinnitus retraining therapy, and labelled its position 'Not covered'. The guideline's provider summary names TRT as an example of recommendation 17, sound enrichment with ongoing directed tinnitus education by an audiologist, which it suggests (weak for). Previously: VA/DoD 2024 · Not covered … Not named. Recommendation 17 suggests sound enrichment with ongoing directed tinnitus education by an audiologist, which is TRT's two components. Now: VA/DoD 2024 · Suggested (weak) … Named in the provider summary as an example of recommendation 17, which suggests sound enrichment with ongoing directed tinnitus education by an audiologist (weak for). Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, when every guideline position on the comparison was checked against the June 2024 VA/DoD provider summary. Its Sidebar 4, 'Evidence-Based Practices to Improve Quality of Life with Tinnitus', lists Tinnitus Retraining Therapy under sound enrichment with ongoing directed tinnitus education by an audiologist, with a pointer to recommendation 17. Every row now follows one rule: a treatment that the provider summary names as part of what a recommendation suggests takes that recommendation's stance. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/treatments/compare

Correction: Tinnitus Treatments Compared: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The evidence lines for three treatments made their studies sound stronger than they were. Bimodal neuromodulation was credited with multi-site pivotal trials, when there was one pivotal trial and it was single-arm with no sham arm; neurofeedback's 24-participant study, which had no control group, was counted among 'small controlled studies' and called a trial; and magnesium and zinc were said to have studies showing effects in deficient populations, which none of the studies behind the entry reports. Previously: Multi-site pivotal trials and clinical-practice data … Small controlled studies, including a 24-participant trial … Study sizes are small. In the trial most often cited, the distress benefit held for six months while the loudness benefit did not. … Small studies, some showing effects in deficient populations … Widely sold for tinnitus. There is some real research, mostly small and often in people who were deficient. Now: One single-arm pivotal trial (TENT-A3) comparing each participant's bimodal weeks with their own earlier sound-only weeks, two randomised trials comparing stimulation settings with each other, and uncontrolled clinic chart reviews … A 24-participant study with no control group, a randomised trial of 94 patients against a minimal intervention, and a 43-person randomised trial of fMRI neurofeedback against group CBT … One small single-arm, open-label magnesium study (19 of 26 completed), and a 2016 Cochrane review of three placebo-controlled zinc trials with 209 participants that found no evidence of benefit Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, and each line of this comparison was then checked against the papers behind it. The Lenire pivotal trial, Boedts, Buechner et al., 2024, calls itself in its title a multi-site single-arm controlled pivotal trial, and the card's own summary already said single-arm. The two earlier trials compared stimulation settings with each other. Güntensperger, Thüring et al., 2019 enrolled 26 people and analysed 24, and the authors name the lack of a placebo control group as a limitation. Jensen, Alanis et al., 2023, a randomised trial of 94 patients, found no advantage on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory over a minimal intervention without neurofeedback, and the entry did not mention it. For magnesium and zinc: Cevette, Barrs et al., 2011 was a single-arm, open-label pilot that enrolled 26 people by how severe their tinnitus was. The 2016 Cochrane review, Person, Puga et al., found no evidence that oral zinc improves tinnitus across three placebo-controlled trials with 209 participants. Yeh, Tseng et al., 2019 gave zinc to people with noise-induced hearing loss and had no placebo group. All three lines had been on the comparison since it was added on 2 September 2026. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/treatments/compare

Correction: SOS — Quick Relief for a Tinnitus Spike

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This page's FAQ and its evidence section said a 2023 meta-analysis found 23 of 30 studies reporting improved heart rate variability and lower breathing and heart rates, and 10 studies reporting less anxiety. Neither count is in that paper, and every outcome it analysed was self-reported: it measured how people felt, not their physiology. Previously: A 2023 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found 23 of 30 studies reported significant improvements in heart rate variability and reduced respiratory/heart rate — signs of parasympathetic (calming) activation — and 10 studies reported reduced anxiety. Now: A 2023 meta-analysis pooled 12 randomized controlled trials with 785 adults and found breathwork linked to lower self-reported stress than control conditions, a small-to-medium effect, with similar effects on anxiety and depressive symptoms. … The authors rated most of the studies at moderate risk of bias and urged caution, and the trials tested breathwork in general, not box breathing or tinnitus in particular. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, when the tool pages were read against the papers they cite. The cited paper, Fincham, Strauss et al., 2023 in Scientific Reports, pooled 12 randomised controlled trials with 785 adults for its main outcome, self-reported stress, and 20 and 18 studies for self-reported anxiety and depressive symptoms. Neither '23 of 30' nor the 10 studies appears in its abstract or full text. Heart rate variability comes up only in its background and discussion, never as an outcome it analysed. The figures had been on the page since the tool was added on 29 August 2026. The section is now titled 'What the evidence shows' and gives the authors' own caution about risk of bias. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/tools/sos

Correction: Tinnitus Frequency Test: Find Your Tinnitus Pitch

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

An FAQ answer on this page said a 2024 systematic review found a measurable effect of notched music on perceived loudness but not on tinnitus handicap. That review found four of five studies using a visual analogue scale positive but had too few to pool, so it reported no pooled effect on loudness. The page's own evidence section already said neither 2024 review could pool the loudness data. Previously: A 2024 systematic review found a measurable effect on perceived loudness but not on overall tinnitus handicap. Now: Two 2024 meta-analyses found no significant effect on tinnitus handicap, and a 2025 meta-analysis that did find an advantage reported a confidence interval running almost to zero. Listening to music you enjoy may help; whether the notch adds anything is unproven. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, when the tool pages were read against the papers they cite. Tavanai, Rahimi et al., 2024 (European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology) found no statistically significant effect of tailor-made notched music on tinnitus handicap at three or six months. They report that four of five studies using a visual analogue scale showed positive effects, but there were too few to meta-analyse that outcome. The answer now also covers the page's other two meta-analyses. Alfonso, Mario et al., 2024 found no significant difference from listening to music (99 against 109 patients). Jiang, Zheng et al., 2025 found an advantage over conventional music therapy at P = 0.044, with a confidence interval on the THI of −17.01 to −0.23. The answer had been on the page since 29 August 2026. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/tools/pitch-match

Correction: Does my medication cause tinnitus?

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The medication checker, and the medications table that reads the same data, credited the beta-blocker reporting odds ratios (4.28 for bisoprolol, 8.06 for nebivolol, 23.29 for timolol combinations) to VigiBase, the WHO's global database, when they come from Italy's national reporting database. It also said carvedilol and labetalol had shown no such signal, which no cited source says, and attributed a 6-to-8-month figure for protracted tinnitus after benzodiazepine withdrawal to a three-patient case series, when it is a 2020 review's account of two patients in a 1986 controlled study. Previously: Adverse-event reporting data shows a disproportionate tinnitus signal for specific beta-blockers: bisoprolol (reporting odds ratio 4.28), nebivolol (8.06), and timolol in combination formulations (23.29). … Pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis of VigiBase, the WHO's global adverse-reaction database. … Carvedilol and labetalol have not shown the same disproportionate signal. … Protracted cases are the exception: in one case series, tinnitus persisted 6 to 8 months in two of three patients before resolving. Now: In Italy's national database the reporting odds ratios were 4.28 for bisoprolol, 8.06 for nebivolol and 23.29 for timolol in combination formulations, each resting on five tinnitus reports. … A 2019 disproportionality analysis of Italy's national spontaneous reporting database (2001 to 2017), plus a 2021 descriptive study of the 123 reports of tinnitus with bisoprolol in VigiBase, the WHO's global database. … In the Italian analysis metoprolol showed a signal for ear-related reactions overall but not for tinnitus specifically, while bisoprolol, nebivolol and timolol combinations did. … A 2020 review reports that two patients in the 1986 study had tinnitus for 6 to 8 months after stopping. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second. The agent re-checking the beta-blocker and benzodiazepine articles found the same wording in the data these two pages share. The odds ratios are adjusted reporting odds ratios for tinnitus from Barbieri, Cicala et al., 2019, which analysed Italy's spontaneous reporting database from December 2001 to December 2017. VigiBase is the subject of a different paper, Watson, Taavola et al., 2021, which describes 123 reports of tinnitus with bisoprolol. Neither paper mentions carvedilol or labetalol. In Barbieri, Cicala et al., metoprolol had a significant signal for ear-related reactions but not for tinnitus. Laskey and Opitz, 2020 give the 6-to-8-month figure for two patients in the 1986 placebo-controlled discontinuation study, Busto, Sellers et al. They also summarise the 1988 series of three patients, Busto, Fornazzari et al.: one patient still had tinnitus at six months, and another's had gone by one year. The entries had been in the medication data since it was added on 2 September 2026. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/tools/medication-checker

Correction: Tinnitus FAQ — Common Questions, Answered Directly

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The FAQ's technical answer to whether tinnitus goes away said tinnitus after a single loud noise usually resolves within 48 to 72 hours, as the temporary hearing shift recovers. No source supported that figure, and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) gives 16 to 48 hours for this kind of temporary hearing loss. Previously: Acute tinnitus following a discrete noise exposure typically resolves as temporary threshold shift recovers, usually within 48–72 hours. Now: Acute tinnitus following a discrete noise exposure typically resolves as temporary threshold shift recovers; NIDCD describes that kind of temporary hearing loss as disappearing 16 to 48 hours later. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, and which flagged the recovery window as unsourced. The NIDCD's page on noise-induced hearing loss says loud noise sometimes causes a temporary hearing loss that disappears 16 to 48 hours later. It adds that some long-term damage may remain even when hearing seems to recover. The answer now gives the NIDCD's figure and names the source. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/faq

Correction: Privacy Policy

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The privacy policy said nothing entered in the tools was transmitted, yet five tools attached a result to their analytics event: the matched tinnitus frequency, the digits-in-noise score, the impact-check score and band, the journal's intensity rating, and the number of risk factors ticked. The policy's description, which is what search results show, also still said the tools store nothing, although the policy itself names five tools that keep results in the browser's local storage. Previously: The tools send us nothing. The hearing tests, the digits-in-noise test, the pitch matcher, the symptom journal, the coping plan and the when-to-seek-care checklist all run entirely in your browser. Nothing you enter is transmitted, and none of it reaches us … What Tinnitus Clarified collects and why: the contact form and cookies only. Every tool on the site runs in your browser and stores nothing. Now: Nothing you enter in the tools is sent anywhere. … Where analytics is enabled, some tools send an event when they are used: its name only, such as “Pitch Match Confirmed” or “Impact Check Completed”, with no answers, scores or frequencies attached. … What Tinnitus Clarified collects and why. Every tool runs in your browser, and nothing you enter in one is sent anywhere. Why: Found during the 2026-09-26 site-wide editorial review, in which every article was re-checked against its sources by one agent and then fact-checked by a second, in an audit of the tool pages and their code. The analytics calls in the pitch matcher, the digits-in-noise test, the impact check, the journal and the risk-factors checklist sent those values as event properties. The site loads Plausible Analytics for every visitor, with no consent step. The pitch-matcher and digits-in-noise pages also said nothing was uploaded. The fix was to change the code, not the promise: every tool now sends only an event name, the sentence 'Nothing you enter is transmitted' is unchanged and now true, and the policy says what the events contain. A revision on 5 September 2026 had corrected the body's earlier claim that the tools store nothing, but left the description still saying it. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/privacy

Correction: Digits-in-Noise Test

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

From the day it was added to the site, 29 August 2026, the digits-in-noise tool reported its score with the sign reversed. It made the background noise louder after every correct answer, which is how the test is meant to work, then averaged that noise level and displayed it as the signal-to-noise ratio, which falls as the noise rises. People who followed the digits well were told their result was worse than normal and worth a hearing evaluation; people who struggled throughout were told they were in the normal range. Previously: Your result: 7 dB SNR … This is higher than the range typically reported for normal hearing in published studies of this test format — the noise had to stay relatively quiet for you to follow the digits. Worth a proper hearing evaluation. (The screen shown to someone who answered all 18 trials correctly.) Now: Your result: −11.5 dB SNR … This is close to, or better than, what published studies of this test format report for normal hearing: reference thresholds of −9.3 dB SNR (normal-hearing listeners, German digit triplet test over headphones) and −9.8 dB SNR (normal-hearing children aged 5–6), in two of the studies cited below. Why: Found in an accessibility audit of the site's audio tools, while checking how loud the test's noise could get: an all-correct run pushed the noise 34 dB above where it started, and the result screen then called that listener's hearing worse than normal. The page's own explanation said lower is better, and the verdict bands assumed it; the code produced the opposite. The tool now tracks the signal-to-noise ratio directly, so there is no second quantity whose sign can drift, and the same all-correct run scores −11.5 dB SNR. Results saved on a device under the old calculation are deleted rather than shown as the last result. The re-check also found that the borderline message described −7 dB as a referral cut-off used in published versions of the test; neither validation study the page cites states one in its abstract, so that wording is gone and the band edges are described as the tool's own. The same review found one of the page's three citations credited to the wrong authors; it is Denys, Wouters and van Wieringen, 2021. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/tools/speech-in-noise-test

Correction: Lenire for Tinnitus: What the FDA Trial Found

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article called the trial behind Lenire's FDA authorisation randomised, and reported its result as a bimodal group against a sound-only group. There were no groups: all 112 participants had six weeks of sound alone and then six weeks of bimodal treatment, in that order, and the trial paper states that no randomisation or masking was applicable. The article also left out that the advantage over sound alone was not observed in the full cohort, and it described the device as FDA-approved and FDA-cleared, when it was granted marketing authorisation through the De Novo pathway, which is neither. Previously: The TENT-A3 trial, which supported Lenire's FDA approval, enrolled 112 participants across three sites and directly compared 6 weeks of bimodal stimulation against 6 weeks of sound-only stimulation … 58.6% of the bimodal group responded, compared to 43.2% of the sound-only group, a statistically significant difference (p=0.022). … This is a genuinely more rigorously tested option than most alternative and complementary approaches covered elsewhere on this site, given the completed randomized pivotal trial behind its approval Now: It was a single-arm, within-subject pivotal trial: all 112 participants had sound-only stimulation first, then bimodal — six weeks of each, always in that order, with each person's second six weeks compared against their first. There were no separate groups. The paper is direct about it: because of the single-arm, repeated-measures design, no randomisation or masking was applicable. … In the full cohort of 112, the paper reports that the advantage for bimodal treatment was not observed. … The fixed order cannot separate the tongue stimulation from time, expectation or order effects. Why: Found in a site audit that read both device articles against the papers they cite. The trial paper's title calls it a multi-site single-arm controlled pivotal trial, and this article listed it under that title while calling it randomised; the paper's methods say the FDA recommended a single-arm, repeated-measures design in which each participant served as their own control. Rereading it turned up the full-cohort result as well — 63.3% responded during the sound-only weeks and 43.3% during the bimodal weeks — which the article had not reported. The page now states the design, both results, the absence of any sham-controlled trial, the manufacturer's funding of the trial as the paper declares it, and the regulatory pathway as the FDA's De Novo database records it: DEN210033, granted on 6 March 2023. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/lenire-bimodal-device-tinnitus

Correction: Bimodal Neuromodulation: A New Generation of Tinnitus Tech

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article presented the pivotal trial's fixed-order design as direct evidence that tongue stimulation adds real benefit rather than a placebo response. A trial in which every participant has sound alone first and bimodal treatment second cannot separate the stimulation from time, expectation or order effects, and no sham-controlled trial of the device exists. The article also counted that one trial twice, as a pivotal trial and as a follow-up, presented an uncontrolled chart-review figure as consistency with the trial, and listed a figure of the device as TENT-A3 trial data. Previously: In participants with moderate or worse tinnitus the bimodal phase produced a significantly higher responder rate — 58.6% against 43.2% for sound alone — which is direct evidence that the tongue stimulation adds real benefit rather than a placebo response to using a new device. … found a 91.5% responder rate among patients starting with bothersome tinnitus, with an average symptom score improvement well above the threshold considered clinically meaningful — a notably high rate of consistency between trial results and real-world outcomes … A follow-up controlled trial (TENT-A3) used a particularly strong design specifically to isolate the tongue-stimulation component's contribution Now: Because bimodal always came second, the fixed order cannot separate the tongue stimulation from time, expectation or order effects, and no sham-controlled trial of the device exists. … It is an uncontrolled, retrospective chart review, with no comparison group and no sound-only stage, so it measures improvement from the start of treatment rather than what the tongue stimulation added. The closest matching figure from TENT-A3 is its responder rate over the full 12 weeks, also counted from the start of treatment: 79.4% of the full cohort … It does not confirm the trial's comparison, which it could not do, because it had no sound-only stage to compare against. Why: Found in the same audit. A comparison in which everyone receives the same two treatments in the same order cannot tell the second treatment apart from the passage of time or the expectation attached to it, and the page had called that design particularly strong. The trial's own authors write that a sham control was not possible because both stimuli are noticeable; that explains the limit of the design but does not remove it. The page now describes each of the three Lenire trials by the design its own abstract states, sets the chart review's figure beside the closest measure the trial paper reports — its own 12-week before-and-after responder rate — and adds a section on who funded and wrote the studies, drawn only from the papers' own disclosures. The source listed as TENT-A3 trial data was a ResearchGate figure whose title, as its address gives it, matches the caption of Figure 1 in the 2019 protocol for TENT-A2, published five years before TENT-A3's results; the page now cites that protocol itself. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/bimodal-neuromodulation-devices

Correction: Notable Tinnitus Studies: A Running Research Summary

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This running summary said real-world data on Lenire tracked its trial results, and called a chart review's 91.5% responder rate post-approval confirmation. That figure came from an uncontrolled, retrospective review at one clinic and counted improvement from the start of treatment, with no sound-only stage, so it could not confirm the trial's comparison of bimodal treatment with sound alone. Previously: Bimodal neuromodulation real-world data continues to track trial results. Following Lenire's 2023 FDA approval, real-world data collected from actual US clinics has now been published in peer-reviewed journals, including a chart review finding a 91.5% responder rate among patients with bothersome tinnitus — consistent with the results from the original controlled trials. This kind of post-approval, real-world confirmation matters because trial results don't always hold up once a treatment leaves a controlled research setting; here, they largely have. Now: It is an uncontrolled, retrospective chart review: no comparison group, no sound-only stage, and every patient in it received tinnitus counselling and education before choosing a treatment plan. The pivotal trial's own 12-week figure, counted from the start of treatment, was 79.4% of its full cohort — also a before-and-after number with no control. … A chart review with no sound-only stage has nothing to set the tongue stimulation against, so it cannot confirm that advantage. Why: Found in the same audit, in both the body and an FAQ answer. The chart review's own authors write that longer use of the device than prescribed cannot be ruled out as a contributor to a responder rate higher than the trials', and its disclosures — now stated on the page — are that its first author is a commercial provider of the treatment and its co-author a consultant with financial interests in the manufacturer. The trial it was said to confirm found an advantage over sound alone only in a subgroup of 44; the trial's figure closest to the chart review's measure, 79.4% of the full cohort over 12 weeks, is a before-and-after number too. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/notable-tinnitus-studies

Correction: How Long Does It Take to Get Used to Tinnitus?

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The description of this article, which is what search results, social previews, the RSS feed and the site's own search show, said 80% of patients habituate emotionally within 12 months of structured therapy. The body had been corrected on 3 September: in the study, 68% reported less annoyance, 80% of those also habituated to the sound itself, and follow-up averaged 33 months. The description had not been corrected with it. Previously: 80% of patients habituate emotionally to tinnitus within 12 months of structured therapy. Timelines vary widely — what actually predicts the difference. Now: In a 702-patient study (mean 33 months after TRT), 68% found tinnitus less annoying; most of those stopped noticing it much of the time. What predicts the pace. Why: Found in a site audit that compared every entry in this log against the text that leaves the page. The 3 September correction was applied to the body and FAQ, where the sentence it quoted lived; the description made the same claim in different words and was not changed with them, so it went on shipping as the meta description, the structured-data description and the feed summary. The corrections checker now fails when an entry's old wording survives on its own in an article's title, description or FAQ, and reports any of those fields still carrying a figure a correction removed, which is the test that would have caught this one. The same pass dealt with two timeline claims in the body that had no source: a 12 to 24 month window, replaced by what the TRT trial's protocol actually records, that early reports put successful treatment of severe tinnitus at up to 18 to 24 months; and documented cases taking as long as five years, which has been cut. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/how-long-to-get-used-to-tinnitus

Correction: Can Tinnitus Be Cured? An Honest Answer

Sat, 26 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

A line printed at the foot of every article said each factual claim on the page was tied to one of its listed sources, and that the page had been checked on its last date. On this page it named two sources, while the page quoted more than a dozen figures from studies it did not list, each cited only on the linked article it came from. And the date was the last revision, not a check of anything. Previously: Every factual claim above is tied to one of the 2 named sources listed on this page, last checked September 21, 2026. Now: The 12 named sources behind this page are listed above; where a figure is discussed in more depth on another page, that page is linked beside it and carries the citation. It was last substantively revised on September 26, 2026. Why: Found in a site audit that compared the figures on each page with the sources it lists. The statement was written as a promise about every page and was true of the typical one, which is not the same thing. The ten studies behind the figures and findings this page quotes are now listed on it, copied from the articles that discuss them, and the line on every article now describes how sourcing works here rather than claiming more. The date is now named for what it is: the frontmatter date records the last substantive revision, as the check that audits it defines one, and has never marked a re-check of a page's accuracy. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/can-tinnitus-be-cured

Correction: Hypnotherapy for Tinnitus: Positive Against Nothing, Level Against Counselling

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article said hypnotherapy was under-evaluated rather than tested, and stated explicitly that this was different from evidence showing something does not work. A randomised trial of 86 patients had compared it against counselling and found no advantage on any measured outcome. The page also quoted a striking 73%-against-24% figure without citing the study it came from. Previously: This is different from evidence actively showing something doesn't work; it's more accurately described as "promising but under-evaluated by the standards used to write clinical guidelines." Now: On all three quantitative measures, and on requests for further follow-up, client-centred hypnotherapy was no better than counselling. The one difference was the subjective one: 45.5% of the hypnotherapy group reported a general sense of improvement, against six patients in the counselling group. … their study, they wrote, could not demonstrate whether it was a genuine hypnotic effect or simply a response to the additional attention from the therapist. Why: Found while ranking articles by how thinly they were documented — this one cited one piece of primary research and one patient-organisation page while assessing a treatment people pay for. The trials exist and they are old: 1985, 1990, 1993 and 1996. They divide cleanly by comparator. Against a waiting list or a brief tone, hypnosis performs well; against a clinician simply paying attention, a 1993 study found the attention arm partially relieved tinnitus on its own, and the 1996 randomised comparison against counselling found no difference at all. A 1999 meta-analysis of the whole psychological family found cognitive-behavioural treatments outperformed the alternatives in controlled studies, which is the reason for the guideline absence the page had treated as a mystery. The uncited 73% figure is Attias et al., 1990, and is now cited and placed in that context. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/hypnotherapy-for-tinnitus

Correction: Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus: Ten Randomised Trials, Eight of Them Negative

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article assessed laser therapy from a single randomised trial and concluded it produced a real effect rather than a placebo response. Ten randomised trials exist and eight of them found the treatment ineffective, so the conclusion described one study rather than the evidence. Previously: The results were genuinely positive on all three measures … real evidence this wasn't simply a placebo response. … LLLT actually has been evaluated in a proper trial; the trial itself just found a limited, fading effect rather than an absence of evidence. Now: Eight of the ten reported that photobiomodulation was ineffective for chronic tinnitus. … The review also graded the trials: risk of bias was high in four, medium in five, and low in one. … So the positive trial reports that most participants did not meaningfully improve, and that those who did largely stopped having improved. Set beside eight randomised trials finding nothing, it reads less like the strongest evidence for laser therapy than like the high-water mark of it. Why: Found while ranking articles by how thinly they were documented: this one cited a single piece of primary research while making a verdict on a treatment people are sold courses of. Four systematic reviews exist and reach four different conclusions, and the reason they differ is now the substance of the page — the review that admitted only randomised trials found eight of ten negative, while the one that counted the wider literature called the outcomes generally positive. That gap is a pattern this site already documents. The reviews also record ten different wavelengths and sessions from nine seconds to thirty minutes, so the disagreement is partly that they are not reviewing the same procedure. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/low-level-laser-therapy-for-tinnitus

Correction: How Tinnitus Is Measured: What THI and TFI Scores Mean

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This site measured almost every treatment result against a 13-point threshold on the Tinnitus Functional Index and a 7-point threshold on the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Neither figure was an estimate of what patients notice. A 2025 study that measured both properly got 9 and 11. Previously: The number to remember: 13 — Thirteen points. The team that developed the Tinnitus Functional Index set a 13-point reduction as their preliminary criterion for a meaningful improvement, and they called it preliminary in the paper. It is the single most useful number for reading a tinnitus trial. Now: A 2025 multi-centre study in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery estimated it directly instead, anchoring to patients' own global ratings of improvement: 9 points on the TFI (range 7.3 to 9.4, N = 359) and 11 points on the THI (range 7.8 to 12, N = 364), both after 12 weeks. It also found the threshold is not fixed — higher baseline severity and longer follow-up both require a larger drop before the change registers. Why: Found in the 2025–26 literature sweep, in the randomised-trial bucket, under a title that does not mention tinnitus treatment. The TFI's 13 came from the instrument's own developers, who wrote "preliminary" in the paper; the THI's 7 was a single trial's responder definition, which is a choice made before that trial started rather than a measurement of anything. The correction runs in both directions — the TFI threshold is lower than this site was quoting and the THI threshold is higher — and both directions are now written into the page, along with the finding that there is no single number. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/how-tinnitus-is-measured

Correction: Internet-Based CBT for Tinnitus: Taking the Best-Supported Treatment Online

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This page read internet CBT's pooled result as falling short of the threshold for a change a person notices. On the better of the two available thresholds it clears it. The page was understating the treatment. Previously: The pooled TFI difference of 12.48 points invites comparison with the 13-point reduction the TFI's developers set as their preliminary criterion for meaningful improvement. Now: Against the TFI developers' preliminary 13-point criterion, 12.48 falls just short. Against the 9-point estimate a 2025 multi-centre study derived by anchoring to patients' own ratings of improvement, it comfortably clears. On the better of the two estimates, this result is above the threshold rather than below it — which is a more favourable reading of internet CBT than this page previously gave. Why: A consequence of the threshold correction above, logged separately because the conclusion of this page reversed rather than shifted. Anyone who read it before was told this result sat below the line. The same correction moved the stellate ganglion block reading further against that treatment, so it is not a case of the numbers being revised in the site's preferred direction — it is the same figure applied consistently. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/internet-based-cbt-for-tinnitus

Correction: Diet, Caffeine, and Alcohol: Do They Affect Tinnitus?

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This article is sceptical about dietary restriction for tinnitus and granted one exception: Ménière's disease, where restriction is standard. It presented that exception as evidence-based. Cochrane found no placebo-controlled trial of salt or caffeine restriction for Ménière's at all. Previously: The exception is Ménière's disease specifically — dietary sodium, caffeine, and alcohol restriction is a longstanding part of managing that condition, tied to fluid regulation in the inner ear. Now: The exception usually given is Ménière's disease … But "longstanding" is doing more work in that sentence than "evidenced". A 2023 Cochrane review found only two randomised trials in the entire literature, and identified no placebo-controlled randomised trials at all for the interventions most frequently recommended — naming salt restriction and caffeine restriction specifically. So the exception this article grants is an exception in clinical practice rather than in evidence. Why: Found while citing the Cochrane suite on Ménière's disease, which this site had an article about and had cited none of. The error was structural rather than factual: the sentence was true about clinical practice and was being used to carry an evidential claim it could not support — the one case standing against the article's general scepticism turned out to rest on the same absence of trials as everything else. Restriction remains standard advice from the specialists managing Ménière's and nobody should drop it over a missing trial; it can no longer be cited here as the case that proves dietary restriction works. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/diet-caffeine-alcohol-and-tinnitus

Correction: Notched Sound Therapy: An Elegant Mechanism, and Trials That Cannot Find the Notch

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The article presented the question of whether the notch itself does anything as settled, under a heading calling one comparison decisive. A 2025 meta-analysis of 14 trials disagrees, and the question is unsettled rather than closed. Previously: The comparison that decides it … So listening to music you like for two hours a day appears to help; the evidence that the notch itself adds anything is what is missing. Now: Where two 2024 meta-analyses landed … A third meta-analysis in 2025, pooling 14 trials and 793 patients, did find notched music better than conventional music therapy — but at P = 0.044, with a confidence interval running from −17.01 to −0.23, an upper bound of essentially zero. So listening to music you like for two hours a day appears to help; whether the notch itself adds anything is still unsettled, with most comparisons finding it does not. Why: Found during a scan for systematic reviews this site had not cited. The underlying reading did not change — most comparisons still find no effect of the notch — but a heading that called one comparison decisive, on a question where three meta-analyses do not agree, claimed more than the evidence allows. The new section leads with the fact that it cuts against the two before it. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/notched-sound-therapy-for-tinnitus

Correction: About & Editorial Policy

Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The About page said this site is supported by display advertising. No advertising runs on it, and none has: no ad network is configured, no ad script loads, and the HTML contains no ad markup on any page. Previously: This site is supported by display advertising (Google AdSense). Where an article links to a specific product and we may earn a commission, that's disclosed directly in the article itself. Now: No advertising runs on this site at present. The slots exist and display advertising is the intended funding model, but no ad network is configured and no ad script loads on any page. The sentence is now generated from whether an ad client is actually set, so it describes what is running rather than what was planned. Why: Found while checking whether the cookie banner described what the site actually does. It did not either: it said declining meant ads would not be personalised, when declining stops the ad script and Google Analytics from loading at all. Both now say what happens, and the banner names Plausible, which is cookieless and runs either way — the privacy policy had always disclosed that correctly, and only the banner implied every analytics tool sat behind the choice. Who funds a health site is among the first things a careful reader checks, which is why this is logged rather than quietly edited. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/about

Correction: Medical Review Policy

Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

This page stated that no article on the site claims medical review. Every article was in fact emitting a lastReviewed date in its structured data, which asserts exactly that claim to search engines and anything else reading the page automatically. Previously: Until then, no article claims review, because none has had one. — while each article's MedicalWebPage schema carried lastReviewed set to the article's last-modified date. Now: The sentence is unchanged and is now true. lastReviewed is emitted only when an article names a real reviewer, which is the same condition the visible byline already used. dateModified still records when the page last changed, which is the honest field for that. Why: Found while auditing how the site describes itself. schema.org defines lastReviewed as the date the content was last reviewed for accuracy or completeness; it was being set from the frontmatter's updated date, so fixing a link or adding an FAQ block silently asserted a medical accuracy review nobody performed. The visible byline had always been gated correctly — this site does not name reviewers it does not have — and the structured data had simply never been held to the same rule. Two tool pages carried a hardcoded lastReviewed for the same reason and it has been removed from both. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/medical-review-policy

Correction: Global Tinnitus Prevalence, By the Numbers

Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

A higher tinnitus rate in men was listed as one of the findings that shows up reliably across nearly every dataset. The largest meta-analysis on the question found no significant difference by sex, so it is not a consistent cross-study pattern. Previously: **Men report higher rates than women** across most age ranges, a gap researchers link partly to historically higher occupational and recreational noise exposure — though some data suggests women report greater distress once tinnitus is present. Now: Large single cohorts, UK Biobank among them, find higher prevalence in men across most adult age ranges. The pooled meta-analysis found no significant difference by sex — 14.1% of men against 13.1% of women. The distress difference is the finding that does recur. Why: Found while adding the 2022 JAMA Neurology meta-analysis of global tinnitus prevalence, which this site had gestured at without citing or quoting. Its 83 pooled studies report 14.1% among men and 13.1% among women, explicitly not a significant difference. The male excess is real in particular cohorts; presenting it as a pattern that holds across datasets was the error, and the same overstatement was corrected in the what-is-tinnitus article at the same time. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/global-tinnitus-prevalence

Correction: Chiropractic Care and Tinnitus: What the Evidence Shows

Sat, 05 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The article stated a causal safety risk — vertebral artery injury from cervical manipulation — that the strongest available review does not support. That review found an association of very low quality and concluded there was no evidence for causation. Previously: Cervical spine manipulation, the core technique in chiropractic adjustment, carries a rare but recognized risk of vertebral artery injury — a genuine, if uncommon, safety consideration… Now: A systematic review and meta-analysis of chiropractic care and cervical artery dissection found a small association — odds ratio 1.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.41 — and rated the quality of that evidence, by GRADE criteria, as "very low". Its authors titled the paper "No Evidence for Causation" and proposed the association may be explained by confounding: a dissection already in progress causes neck pain, and neck pain is what sends people to a chiropractor. Why: Found while replacing a source. The article listed one of this site's own pages in its Sources block, which is circular; sourcing the claims properly meant reading the actual literature on cervical manipulation and artery dissection, and the best available review says something materially weaker and more interesting than the standard phrasing the article had used. The revised text states neither that it is dangerous nor that it is safe, because very low quality evidence supports neither. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/chiropractic-care-and-tinnitus

Correction: How Long Does It Take to Get Used to Tinnitus?

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

An 80% habituation figure was reported as a share of all patients within 12 months. In the underlying study it is 80% of the 68% whose annoyance improved, over a mean follow-up of 33 months — a materially smaller and slower result. Previously: Research suggests roughly 80% of patients can habituate to the emotional reactions their tinnitus produces within about 12 months. Now: 68% described improvement in how much the tinnitus annoyed them, and of those, 80% also described habituation of the perception itself — across 702 patients followed for a mean of 33 months. Why: Found while re-sourcing the article. The claim had rested on two clinic marketing pages; reading the actual study behind the figure showed the number had been flattened into a simpler, more encouraging form than the data supports. The article now states the two milestones separately, because they are separate. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/how-long-to-get-used-to-tinnitus

Correction: Veterans and Tinnitus: Why It's the #1 VA Disability Claim

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

The article stated that VA had eliminated tinnitus as a standalone disability rating for new claims from April 2025. It had not. Diagnostic Code 6260 is still in the regulation. Previously: Effective after April 2025, the VA announced changes eliminating tinnitus as a standalone disability rating going forward — meaning newly filed claims will generally need tinnitus tied to another service-connected condition to be compensable. Now: Diagnostic Code 6260 — “Tinnitus, recurrent”, 10 percent — is still in 38 CFR 4.87 as published, with its three notes intact. VA has floated proposals to revise how the ear schedule treats tinnitus, and articles about those proposals circulate widely without making clear that a proposal is not a regulation. Why: Found during a source audit. The claim rested only on law-firm and claims-service marketing pages. Checking 38 CFR 4.87 as published by GovInfo showed the standalone rating still in force, and the article now cites the regulation itself. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/veterans-and-tinnitus-va-disability

Correction: Veterans and Tinnitus: Why It's the #1 VA Disability Claim

Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT

A compensation figure was attributed to VA's annual benefits reporting but could not be traced to it, and it disagreed with the figure used in another article on this site. Previously: According to the VA's own annual benefits reporting, tinnitus ranked first among all service-connected disabilities, with over 3.2 million veterans currently receiving disability compensation for it — more than any other condition, including hearing loss itself, which ranks fifth with more than 1.5 million veterans compensated. Now: More than 2.3 million veterans receiving compensation for tinnitus in fiscal year 2020, against more than 1.3 million for hearing loss — the figures VA's own research pages give, citing the Veterans Benefits Administration compensation report. Why: Two articles on this site gave different totals. The lower figure is the one traceable to a VA page with a year attached; the higher one appeared only in secondary summaries without a year. The article now says so rather than picking the larger number. Corrected page: https://www.tinnitusclarified.com/articles/veterans-and-tinnitus-va-disability