ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Application of ABR in pathogenic neurovascular compression of the 8th cranial nerve in vestibular paroxysmia.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Vestibular paroxysmia: a systematic review.Journal of neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Medical Management of the Near-Narrowed Internal Auditory Canal Pathology in the Adult Population: A Preliminary Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the clinical value of electrophysiological tests in indicating pathogenic vascular contact of the 8th nerve in definite vestibular paroxysmia (VP) cases to provide a reference for decompression surgery.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients who had vertigo, unilateral tinnitus, or hearing loss and exhibited vascular contact of the 8th cranial nerve by MRI. Participants were classified into the VP or non-VP group according to the criteria of the Bárány Society in 2016. The demographic characteristics and audiological and electrophysiological test results of the two groups were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated for ABR to determine the best parameters and cutoff values to predict the existence of pathological neurovascular contact in VP.
resultsThirteen patients in the VP group and 66 patients in the non-VP group were included. VP patients had longer interpeak latency (IPL) I-III and wave III latency compared to non-VP patients (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). According to the ROC analyses, IPL I-III and wave III latency were the best indicators for the diagnosis of VP. The optimal cutoff for IPL I-III was 2.3 ms (sensitivity 84.6%, specificity 95.5%), and that for wave III latency was 4.0 ms (sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 77.3%). There were no differences in the PTA, caloric test, o-VEMP, or c-VEMP results between the two groups.
conclusionProlonged IPL I-III and the wave III latency of ABR strongly suggested that vascular contact of the 8th cranial nerve was pathological, which may provide some references for microvascular decompression surgery of VP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.