Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29483893›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2018

Mathematical Methods for Measuring the Visually Enhanced Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex and Preliminary Results from Healthy Subjects and Patient Groups.

Jorge Rey-Martinez, Angel Batuecas-Caletrio, Eusebi Matiño, Gabriel Trinidad-Ruiz, Xabier Altuna, Nicolas Perez-Fernandez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jorge Rey-MartinezOtorhinolaringology, Hospital Universitario Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain.
Angel Batuecas-CaletrioComplejo Hospitalario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.
Eusebi MatiñoHospital General de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Gabriel Trinidad-RuizUniversity Hospital of Badajoz, Badajoz, Spain.
Xabier AltunaOtorhinolaringology, Hospital Universitario Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain.
Nicolas Perez-FernandezClínica Universidad de Navarra, Madrid, Spain.
Biogipuzkoa Health Research Institute · ESCentro de Implantología Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial · ESClinica Universidad de Navarra · ESComplejo Hospitalario de Salamanca · ESHospital General de Catalunya · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisually enhanced vestibulo-ocular reflex (VVOR) is a well-known bedside clinical test to evaluate visuo-vestibular interaction, with clinical applications in patients with neurological and vestibular dysfunctions. Owing to recently developed diagnostic technologies, the possibility to perform an easy and objective measurement of the VVOR has increased, but there is a lack of computational methods designed to obtain an objective VVOR measurement.

objectivesTo develop a method for the assessment of the VVOR to obtain a gain value that compares head and eye velocities and to test this method in patients and healthy subjects.

methodsTwo computational methods were developed to measure the VVOR test responses: the first method was based on the area under curve of head and eye velocity plots and the second method was based on the slope of the linear regression obtained for head and eye velocity data. VVOR gain and vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) gain were analyzed with the data obtained from 35 subjects divided into four groups: healthy (

resultsIntra-class correlation index for the two developed VVOR analysis methods was 0.99. Statistical differences were obtained by analysis of variance statistical method, comparing the healthy group (VVOR mean gain of 1 ± 0) with all other groups. The CANVAS group exhibited (VVOR mean gain of 0.4 ± 0.1) differences when compared to all other groups. VVOR mean gain for the vestibular bilateral group was 0.8 ± 0.1. VVOR mean gain in the unilateral group was 0.6 ± 0.1, with a Pearson's correlation of 0.52 obtained when VVOR gain was compared to the VOR gain of the operated side.

conclusionTwo computational methods to measure the gain of VVOR were successfully developed. The VVOR gain values appear to objectively characterize the VVOR alteration observed in CANVAS patients, and also distinguish between healthy subjects and patients with some vestibular disorders.

Indexed as

algorithmsCANVASdessaccadegainvestibular schwannomavestibulo–ocular reflexvideo head impulse testVisually enhanced VORvisual–vestibular interaction

Identifiers

PMID29483893
PMCPMC5816338
OpenAlexW2793119662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.