rTMS for tinnitus: meta-analysis of 16 RCTs
Record details
- Authors: He Z, et al.
- Journal / source: Frontiers in Neuroscience (2025)
- Design: Meta-analysis
- Sample: 1,105 (16 RCTs)
- Primary endpoint: THI, VAS
- Randomized: Yes · Sham/placebo-controlled: Yes · Independent of the manufacturer: Yes
What this research found
Active rTMS beat sham post-treatment (THI MD −11.5) and at 1 month (−11.0). At 6 months the two big meta-analyses DISAGREE: this 2025 analysis found no significant effect (MD −4.26, 95% CI −10.28 to 1.76), while the 2020 meta-analysis (29 RCTs, N=1,228; PMID 33228598) found a small significant one (−6.53, 95% CI −11.41 to −1.66).
Either way, even the significant estimates sit at or below the ~7-point THI clinical-meaningfulness threshold — the durability and magnitude problems are unresolved, not settled in either direction.
Limitations and conflicts of interest
High protocol heterogeneity; 6-month durability disputed between meta-analyses.
Funding / conflicts: Independent.
Primary sources
Used as evidence for
This is an original summary from the Tinnitus Evidence verified database, checked against the primary source — not a reproduction of the publisher's abstract.