Objective: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is currently being tested for suppressing the symptoms of subjective chronic primary tinnitus, although its effect is controversial. The aim of this randomized double‐blinded controlled trial was to determine the effect of rTMS with unique settings for tinnitus treatment.Methods: Fifty‐three adult patients suffering from chronic subjective unilateral or bilateral nonpulsatile primary tinnitus for at least 6 months were randomly assigned to rTMS (group 1, n = 20), sham stimulation (group 2, n = 12), or medicament therapy only (group 3, n = 21). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (frequency 25 Hz, 300 pulses, and 80% resting motor threshold [RMT]) on the left side and primary auditory cortex (1 Hz, 1000 pulses, 110% RMT) were stimulated on both sides in patients in group 1 for 5 consecutive days. The Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire (TRQ), Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire (THQ), Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), pure‐tone audiometry with Fowler scoring of hearing loss, and tinnitus analysis were used to evaluate tinnitus in all patients. Data were recorded the day the patient was included in the study and at 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up.Results: The study groups were homogenous. No significant effect of rTMS was found at 1 or 6 months based on the BDI, THQ, and TRQ scores or tinnitus masking. There was a significant but clinically irrelevant effect on the THI score after 1 and 6 months.Interpretation: No significant effect of bilateral low‐frequency rTMS of the primary auditory cortex and high‐frequency stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex was demonstrated.

Background: The Peptest^TM is a non-invasive diagnostic test for measuring the pepsin concentration in saliva, which is thought to correlate with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of the Peptest in detecting LPR based on 24-h multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring using several hypopharyngeal reflux episodes as criterion for LPR. Methods: Patients with suspected LPR were examined with the Reflux Symptom Index (RSI), Reflux Finding Score (RFS), fasting Peptest, and MII-pH monitoring. We calculated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Peptest, RSI, and RFS based on the threshold of one and six hypopharyngeal reflux episodes. Results: Altogether, the data from 46 patients were analyzed. When one hypopharyngeal reflux episode was used as a diagnostic threshold for LPR, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were, respectively, as follows: 35%, 33%, 100%, 100%, and 3%, for the Peptest; 39%, 40%, 0%, 95%, and 0%, for the RSI; and 57%, 58%, 0%, 96%, and 0%, for the RFS. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Peptest for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were 46%, 27%, 63%, 40.0%, and 48%, respectively. Conclusions: A positive Peptest is highly supportive of a pathological LPR diagnosis. However, a negative test could not exclude LPR.

OBJECTIVE:Recently, a 24-h impedance was used to detect laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, not every case of LPR is pathological. Thus, pathological pharyngeal impedance values need to be clearly established to diagnose pathological LPR. The aim of our study was to establish pathological 24-h