ReviewHNO2020
[Evidence-based diagnostic use of VEMPs : From neurophysiological principles to clinical application. German version].
Review in HNO, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Auditory Frequency Stimulation on Balance and Rehabilitation Outcomes in Patients With Stroke: A Randomized Case-Control Study.Brain and behavior · 2025Trial
- Heading direction perception in the horizontal plane is strongly driven by rotational stimuli in healthy and impaired in vestibular hypofunction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Article
- Interaction of Hearing and Balance.Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2023Article
- Rare Disorders of the Vestibular Labyrinth: of Zebras, Chameleons and Wolves in Sheep's Clothing.Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2021Review
- Clinical characteristics in unilateral vestibular atelectasis.Journal of neurology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVestibular evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) are increasingly being used for testing otolith organ function.
objectiveThis article provides an overview of the anatomical, biomechanical and neurophysiological principles of an evidence-based clinical application of ocular and cervical VEMPs (oVEMPs and cVEMPs). MATERIAL AND
methodsSystematic literature search in PubMed until April 2019.
resultsSound and vibration at a frequency of 500 Hz represent selective vestibular stimuli for the otolith organs. The predominant specificity of oVEMPs for contralateral utricular function and of cVEMPs for ipsilateral saccular function is defined by the different neuronal projections of the utricle and the saccule. VEMPs are particularly useful in the diagnosis of superior canal dehiscence and otolith organ-specific vestibular dysfunction and as an alternative diagnostic approach in situations when video oculography is not possible or useful.
conclusionThe use of VEMPs is a simple, safe, reliable and selective test of dynamic function of otolith organs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31578599What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.