Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33067287›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2020

Treatment success of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation in general practice: development and internal validation of a prediction model.

Vincent A van Vugt, Martijn W Heymans, Johannes C van der Wouden, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Otto R Maarsingh

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in Otolaryngology research: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Virtual Reality Vestibular Rehabilitation in 20 Patients with Vertigo Due to Peripheral Vestibular Dysfunction.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vincent A van VugtDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands v.vanvugt@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2746-4820
Martijn W HeymansAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johannes C van der WoudenDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henriëtte E van der HorstDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Otto R MaarsinghDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo develop and internally validate prediction models to assess treatment success of both stand-alone and blended online vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in patients with chronic vestibular syndrome.

designSecondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

setting59 general practices in The Netherlands.

participants202 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome who received either stand-alone VR (98) or blended VR (104). Stand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, the same intervention was supplemented with physiotherapy support.

main outcome measuresSuccessful treatment was defined as: clinically relevant improvement of (1) vestibular symptoms (≥3 points improvement Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form); (2) vestibular-related disability (>11 points improvement Dizziness Handicap Inventory); and (3) both vestibular symptoms and vestibular-related disability. We assessed performance of the predictive models by applying calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and applied internal validation.

resultsImprovement of vestibular symptoms, vestibular-related disability or both was seen in 121, 81 and 64 participants, respectively. We generated predictive models for each outcome, resulting in different predictors in the final models. Calibration for all models was adequate with non-significant Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, but the discriminative ability of the final predictive models was poor (AUC 0.54 to 0.61). None of the identified models are therefore suitable for use in daily general practice to predict treatment success of online VR.

conclusionIt is difficult to predict treatment success of internet-based VR and it remains unclear who should be treated with stand-alone VR or blended VR. Because we were unable to develop a useful prediction model, the decision to offer stand-alone or blended VR should for now be based on availability, cost effectiveness and patient preference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

Indexed as

General PracticeVestibular DiseasesAdultAgedDizzinessHumansInternetMiddle AgedNetherlandsTreatment Outcomeadult neurologyneurotologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID33067287
PMCPMC7569931
OpenAlexW3092997623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.