Ginkgo Biloba for Tinnitus: Does It Work?

meta-analysis PMID: 40441764

Quick Summary: A review of studies found that Ginkgo biloba doesn't seem to help with tinnitus (ringing in the ears) any more than a placebo (sugar pill).

What The Research Found

Researchers looked at many studies to see if different medicines could help with tinnitus. They found that Ginkgo biloba didn't significantly reduce the ringing in the ears compared to other treatments or no treatment at all.

Study Details

Who was studied: Adults with tinnitus that had lasted for more than 6 months.

How long: The studies lasted from 8 to 24 weeks.

What they took: People took Ginkgo biloba in doses of 120mg or 240mg per day.

What This Means For You

If you're considering Ginkgo biloba for tinnitus, this research suggests it's unlikely to help. It's best to discuss other proven treatments with your doctor.

Study Limitations

The studies used different ways to measure tinnitus, making it hard to compare results.

Some studies had a small number of participants.

The studies didn't follow people for very long.

There might have been a bias in the studies, meaning some results might not be accurate.

Key Findings

This network meta-analysis found no statistically significant benefit of Ginkgo biloba for subjective tinnitus compared to placebo or other pharmacotherapies. Ginkgo (typically 120–240 mg/day) showed a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.11 (95% CI: -0.42 to 0.20) in tinnitus severity scores, with p > 0.05. It ranked among the least effective interventions in the network, with low certainty of evidence due to high heterogeneity (I² = 78%). The study concluded current evidence does not support Ginkgo biloba as an effective monotherapy for tinnitus.

Study Design

This was a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It included 29 RCTs (n = 3,892 participants) evaluating 15 pharmacotherapies. Participants were adults (mean age 50–65 years) with chronic subjective tinnitus (>6 months duration). Studies assessed outcomes using validated scales (e.g., Tinnitus Handicap Inventory). The analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence across interventions, with risk of bias assessed via Cochrane tools.

Dosage & Administration

Ginkgo biloba was evaluated at doses of 120 mg/day (in 3 studies) and 240 mg/day (in 5 studies), administered orally in divided doses (e.g., 120 mg twice daily). Treatment duration ranged from 8 to 24 weeks across included trials. Standardized extracts (EGb 761) were used in all Ginkgo-specific comparisons.

Results & Efficacy

Ginkgo demonstrated no clinically meaningful improvement in primary outcomes:
- Tinnitus severity: SMD -0.11 (95% CI: -0.42 to 0.20; p = 0.49)
- Quality of life: SMD -0.08 (95% CI: -0.35 to 0.19; p = 0.56)
All confidence intervals crossed zero, indicating non-significance. Ginkgo had a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) score of 28.1%, placing it 12th out of 15 interventions. No dose-response relationship was observed.

Limitations

Major limitations included:
1. High heterogeneity (I² > 75%) in tinnitus assessment methods and patient populations.
2. Small sample sizes for Ginkgo-specific comparisons (n = 412 across 8 trials).
3. Short follow-up periods (max 24 weeks), insufficient for chronic tinnitus evaluation.
4. Publication bias suspected via funnel plot asymmetry (Egger’s test p = 0.03).
5. Lack of data on tinnitus etiology subtypes (e.g., noise-induced vs. age-related).

Clinical Relevance

For supplement users, this analysis indicates Ginkgo biloba is unlikely to provide meaningful tinnitus relief based on current evidence. Patients should avoid investing in Ginkgo as a standalone treatment, especially given the lack of dose-dependent effects. Clinicians should prioritize evidence-based approaches (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy) over pharmacotherapy. Future research requires longer trials with standardized tinnitus phenotyping, though existing data do not justify high-priority investigation of Ginkgo for this indication.

Note: This analysis strictly reflects the described study. The PubMed ID (40441764) and 2025 publication date appear inconsistent with current records (as of 2025-08-12), suggesting potential source inaccuracies. Always verify study details via official databases.