SynthesisPloS one2022
The HINTS examination and STANDING algorithm in acute vestibular syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis involving frontline point-of-care emergency physicians.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Head impulse, nystagmus, and test of skew examination for diagnosing central causes of acute vestibular syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Prediction Model for Etiologic Differentiation of Isolated Vestibular Syndrome in Emergency Settings.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic spectrum of unplanned acute hospital admissions within 30 days after emergency department presentation for vertigo in older adults: a province-wide retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of the Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score to risk stratify for a serious cause of vertigo.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
- Integrated diagnostic algorithm for acute vertigo combining TiTrATE, STANDING, and HINTS: a validation study in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Augmenting early stroke diagnosis with an eye-tracker.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Leadership Perceptions, Educational Struggles and Barriers, and Effective Modalities for Teaching Vertigo and the HINTS Exam: A National Survey of Emergency Medicine Residency Program Directors.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Acute vestibular migraine: a ghost diagnosis in patients with acute vertigo.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Hyperacute vestibular syndrome: the role of an acute vertigo service.Frontiers in stroke · 2023Article
- The Spectrum of Vestibular Disorders Presenting With Acute Continuous Vertigo.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Detecting simulated skew deviation using a smartphone eye-tracking application (EyePhone): a feasibility study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aims to evaluate whether point-of-care emergency physicians, without special equipment, can perform the HINTS examination or STANDING algorithm to differentiate between central and non-central vertigo in acute vestibular syndrome with diagnostic accuracy and reliability comparable to more specialized physicians (neuro-ophthalmologists and neuro-otologists). Previous research has concluded that emergency physicians are unable to utilize the HINTS examination with sufficient accuracy, without providing any appropriate education or training. A comprehensive systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane CENTRAL register of controlled trials, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Google Scholar, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and conference programs and abstracts from six medical organizations. Of the 1,757 results, only 21 were eligible for full-text screening. Two further studies were identified by a manual search of references and an electronic search for any missed studies associated with the authors. Five studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. For the STANDING algorithm, there were two studies of 450 patients who were examined by 11 emergency physicians. Our meta-analysis showed that emergency physicians who had received prior education and training were able to utilize the STANDING algorithm with a sensitivity of 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.00) and a specificity of 0.88 (0.85-0.91). No data was available for the HINTS examination. When emergency physicians are educated and trained, they can use the STANDING algorithm with confidence. There is a lack of evidence regarding the HINTS examination; however, two ongoing studies seek to remedy this deficit.
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.