SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Association of periodic limb movements during sleep and tinnitus in humans.

Sci Rep · 2020-04-06

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62987-9PMID: 32249815

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Both of periodic limb movements during sleep (PLMS) and tinnitus were related with dopaminergic system dysfunction. However, it was still unclear whether PLMS, one kind of sleep disturbances, was associated with chronic tinnitus or not. Thus, we aimed to investigate this issue in humans. Clinical and overnight polysomnographic data of 2849 adults from a community hospital during Nov. 2011 to Jun 2017 in Taiwan was collected retrospectively. The association of PLMS and chronic tinnitus was analyzed by Student's t-test, Pearson's Chi-Square test, and multivariate logistic regression. The results showed that the mean age was 50.6 years old (standard deviation, SD = 13.3, range = 18~91) for all subjects. There were 1886 subjects without tinnitus and 963 subjects with tinnitus in this study. The PLMS was not significantly different between subjects without tinnitus (mean = 1.0/h, SD = 3.5/h) and subjects with tinnitus mean = 1.1/h, SD = 3.4/h) by Student's t-test. The severity of PLMS was not significantly between non-tinnitus and tinnitus subjects by Pearson's Chi-Square test. Multivariate logistic regression also showed that PLMS was not significantly associated with tinnitus after adjusting age, sex, subjective hearing loss, Parkinson's disease, and insomnia. In conclusion, PLMS was not associated with chronic tinnitus in humans.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.