What clinical trials have tested Dr. Harrington's tinnitus treatment and what were their results?
Executive summary
A targeted search of the provided reporting finds no clinical trials that reference a "Dr. Harrington" or a treatment attributed to that name; therefore there is no sourced evidence in these documents to describe trials of Dr. Harrington’s tinnitus therapy or their results (p1_s1–[4]4). To place that absence in context, the reporting summarizes several other clinical trials and trial registries for tinnitus treatments — examples include vagus‑nerve‑stimulation paired‑tone work at UT Dallas, the Neuromonics acoustic therapy trials, and a bi‑sensory stimulation randomized trial from Michigan Medicine — whose designs and mixed outcomes illustrate why a named investigator’s treatment must be documented in trial registries or peer‑reviewed reports to be meaningfully evaluated [1] [2] [3].
1. What the user actually asked and the immediate limitation of the record
The user sought the clinical trials that tested "Dr. Harrington’s" tinnitus treatment and their results; none of the supplied sources mention Dr. Harrington or a treatment under that name, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the American Tinnitus Association pages cited are presented as general repositories rather than containing an entry tying that name to a registered study in these excerpts [4] [5]. Because the supplied reporting does not document trials attributed to Dr. Harrington, any definitive claims about his or her trials would be unsupported by these sources.
2. Where tinnitus clinical trials are normally documented (and why that matters)
ClinicalTrials.gov is the standard public registry for interventional trials and is referenced here as a place to search for tinnitus studies, while the American Tinnitus Association points patients and researchers to that database for locating trials; absence of a named investigator in these registries or in ATA listings in the provided snippets means independent verification of a specific physician’s trial activity is not available in the current record [4] [5].
3. Representative trial: vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) paired‑tone therapy — small positive signals, limited sample
A small UT Dallas trial of vagus nerve stimulation paired with tones reported that four participants experienced large, clinically meaningful reductions in perceived tinnitus loudness (26 dB) while other participants did not improve, with investigators noting possible interaction with concurrent medications as a factor; the report frames the result as promising but limited by sample size and heterogeneity of response [1].
4. Representative trial: Neuromonics acoustic therapy — larger, sustained improvements reported in some trials
Published work on the Neuromonics acoustic stimulation approach reported that a large proportion of participants across groups showed clinically and statistically significant improvements in tinnitus distress over months, with reports such as 91% of subjects noting substantial improvement at six months and many achieving levels that were “no longer clinically significant,” though these are trial‑specific outcomes and not universal across tinnitus interventions [2].
5. Representative trial: bi‑sensory stimulation (Auricle / Shore) — randomized evidence and commercialization interests
A double‑blind randomized clinical trial led by Susan Shore and colleagues found measurable benefit in a subgroup with somatic tinnitus using personalized bi‑sensory stimulation; the announcement notes the study used validated questionnaires (TFI, THI) and that the inventors have a financial interest in a spin‑out (Auricle), highlighting both positive randomized evidence for a defined subtype and the importance of declaring potential commercial conflicts [3].
6. Methodological context: why single positive findings don’t settle efficacy
Tinnitus is heterogeneous and predominantly subjective, so trial methodology — choice of outcome measures (questionnaires vs loudness), sample size, blinding, and subgroup definitions — strongly shapes results; systematic reviews and trial‑design guidance emphasize standardized, adequately powered RCTs and careful outcome selection to avoid misleading conclusions from small or methodologically variable studies [6] [7] [8].
7. Conclusion — what can be stated from the supplied reporting
From the provided sources it cannot be confirmed that any clinical trials have tested a treatment specifically attributed to "Dr. Harrington"; instead the record contains examples of other tinnitus trials with mixed but occasionally promising results and clear methodological caveats that explain why an individual investigator’s unregistered or unpublished claims would require corroboration in registries or peer‑reviewed papers before being accepted [4] [1] [2] [3] [6]. For a firm answer about Dr. Harrington’s trials, trial registration entries (ClinicalTrials.gov or equivalent) or peer‑reviewed publications naming that investigator would be necessary, and those are not present in the supplied reporting [4] [5].