Talk:Tinnitus

Link to suicide

Tinnitus can be profound and incurable and lead to depression and even suicide. See PMC 6580142 Technophant (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

A possible cause and a possible "cure"

My GP, who is a bit out there, has a theory. I have constant tinnitus. 24hrs a day. A "special" CAT scan (I am not medical so dont know in what way it was "special") has indicated that I have Eagle syndrome, caused by an abnormally large styloid process pressing on the internal jugular veins. The CAT scan indicated considerable flow restriction in these veins.

My GP is of the opinion that the restriction in flow through these veins causes back pressure in all the blood vessels in the brain. This can cause a variety of symptoms, including, notable tinnitus.

He has send me to a physiotherapist who 2001:8003:E40F:9601:4D90:A972:FCCB:FA19 (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done First, it is unclear what you want done. Second, any requested changes must adhere to the content guideline for identifying reliable medical sources: Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. Thirdly, it appears that your comment was cut short, so we have no idea of what you intended to conclude. Peaceray (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Medications

This section should mention Rick Simpson Oil, for better or worse. 142.126.192.3 (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Only as a quack remedy. kencf0618 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:MEDRS, do you have citations from literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies? Peaceray (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Auricle neuromodulation device in neuromodulation section

This discussion originally began on Zefr's talk page, Zefr then responded[1] on my talkpage. At Zefr's request, it is being moved here:

Hi Zefr. I noticed you reverted[2] my addition of information regarding a device created by Susan Shore at the Unviersity of Michigan to the Tinnitus article with the edit summary "more news than a suitable review - WP:NOTNEWS; also WP:NOTCV for lab research". My edit stated "A device using a related technology was developed at the Susan Shore Lab at the University of Michigan. A private company, Auricle, has sought FDA approval to market the device as a treatment for somatic tinnitus." and contained several references to support it, including Washington Post, and New Scientist.

I disagree with your characterization of my edit for several reasons. First, the addition of a medical device that has been developed at a public university for over a decade by a notable person (Susan Shore) using neuromodulation, the subtopic, widely covered by various WP:RS to treat the topic of the article, tinnitus, is well within the scope of the section where it was added. Further, this section contains information about another company's product (Nuromod's Lenire), yet you failed to remove this.

To the topic of WP:NOTNEWS, the addition clearly does not contain original reporting, Who's Who, nor does it contain celebrity gossip. The addition did use news coverage as a source material for an encyclopedic topic (as explicitly allowed by WP:NOTNEWS) however, the addition did not contain "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities". What the addition did was to "include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." A neuromodulation device to treat tinnitus that has been in development over decades and whose development has been widely covered by numerous WP:RS being included in a neuromodulation treatment section in the tinnitus article is clearly relevant.

WP:NOTCV is also not a valid reason for removal. I fail to see how the addition qualifies as a personal webpage, a file storage area, a dating service, a memorial, or content projects. I merely mentioned the lab at the University of Michigan where the device was created and added a Wikilink to the page. I do not see how this could be interpreted under WP:NOTCV.

If you would like me to add peer-reviewed research as a reference to this edit (such as https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2805515) or even a WP:MEDRS source (such as https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-35647-6_50), I am happy to do so, or if you would prefer a different phrasing I am open to that.

Keeping it brief, the Nuromod device is not approved and remains under preliminary research (JAMA) without FDA approval, and is reported only by news sources. The potential success of the device is a future determination, WP:CRYSTAL. Secondly, in a medical encyclopedia article on a candidate device not yet having FDA approval or a MEDRS review, there is no value to the general user that the device was developed in a U of M lab - this is a topic included under WP:MEDSAY, and its use in your edit impressed as a non-neutral way of highlighting Susan Shore - WP:NOTCV.

Rather than having the discussion on your or my talk page, this discussion is about the content of the article. If you wish to debate it further, it should go on the article talk page for other editors to review. Zefr (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr:

Keeping it brief, the Nuromod device is not approved, remains under preliminary research (JAMA) without FDA approval, and is reported only by news sources.

I would first like to clarify that Lenire's "Neromod" device is indeed FDA-approved and remains included in the article; you did not remove information related to that device. The device in question is the device developed by Susan Shore's lab. Nowhere did I claim the device had been approved yet; I explained that the developers are currently seeking approval. However, the device is far beyond the "preliminary research" stages of development. It is at the stage where it is going through the approval process for marketing. Even if it was still in the research stage, that is not inherently a bar to inclusion in an article. Indeed, Wikipedia has an extensive number of independent articles (rather than information in other articles) about many drug candidates and failed drug candidates. Wikipedia also has articles about medical devices that have not yet been approved. For example, an entire article about an unapproved tinnitus device exists, Tinnitracks. Further, while the device has been widely reported on in WP:RS news sources, it has not only been reported by news sources; it has also been reported in a number of peer-reviewed journal articles, and the results of a clinical trial of the device were published in 2023.[3]

This does not even begin to explore the number of drugs, supplements, and other treatments on the page that have nowhere near the amount of reporting or research on the page that you have chosen to retain in the article, nor have any retained drugs or supplements been FDA-approved.

The potential success of the device is a future determination, WP:CRYSTAL.

Inclusion of a neuromodulation device that is intended to treat tinnitus in the relevant section of the article involving neuromodulation is not purely dependent on whether it has already proven to be a "success". Again, the article includes a wide number of drugs that have not been approved and have far less research behind them. Whether a device has proved to be a success or not, if its existence and research involving it have been widely reported and discussed in both peer-reviewed journals and by large mainstream news sources, it would be ripe for inclusion in an article. I feel like my statements are in full compliance with WP:CRYSTAL; none of the information presented contains "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions," nor does it attempt to predict the future of anything. I simply stated the current status of the device: it is currently seeking approval. I did not speculate on whether it was going to be approved, nor did I speculate on the device's effectiveness. To the extent that one could attempt to derive any prediction (which, as I said, I don't think a plain reading of my edit would result in), it would appear to be allowed under "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."

Secondly, in a medical encyclopedia article on a candidate device not yet having FDA approval or a MEDRS review, there is no value to the general user that the device was developed in a U of M lab - this is a topic included under WP:MEDSAY, and its use in your edit impressed as a non-neutral way of highlighting Susan Shore - WP:NOTCV.

I first wanted to clarify that I have no financial or personal conflicts to declare with the University of Michigan, Susan Shore, the Susan Shore Lab, or the device developer. I have never been to the University of Michigan, nor have I ever met or spoken with Susan Shore or anyone working on the device. Stating where a device was developed is not at all forbidden under WP:MEDSAY. I did not provide a detailed analysis of a study, nor did I hype a study by listing "names, credentials, institutions" of the authors of any study, nor did I publish my own views about a study (because I did not discuss a study). I stated the lab where the device was developed, "the Susan Shore Lab at the University of Michigan". This is not at all unusual on Wikipedia; many drugs and devices list where the drug was developed, or even the names of who developed them. Had I said something to the effect of "a study showing the device's effectiveness was led by Dr. Susan Shore, a professor at the University of Michigan," that would indeed be a violation of WP:MEDSAY, but I did not do that.

I fail to see how anything I wrote remotely violates WP:NOTCV. I did not even mention Susan Shore personally; I mentioned it was developed by her lab. I certainly did not create a personal webpage for her (although I did pipe Wikilink about her lab to her biography article on Wikipedia).

I strongly feel the inclusion of the neuromodulation device developed in the Shore Lab and feel is appropriate based on the device's stage of development, substantial media coverage by WP:RS, and peer-reviewed research. The information presented adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines on speculation and neutral points of view. As I stated earlier, I am open to suggestions for improving the wording and incorporating additional references to strengthen the article.Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)