Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511910›Full record

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.

Millie Nakatsuka, Emma E Molloy

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Millie NakatsukaDiscipline of Clinical Ophthalmology and Eye Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9645-3375
Emma E MolloyWest Moreton Health Service, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.
Ipswich Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PhysiciansPoint-of-Care SystemsAcute DiseaseAlgorithmsHumansReproducibility of ResultsVertigo

Identifiers

PMID35511910
PMCPMC9070939
OpenAlexW4228999002

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.