ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Videooculography "HINTS" in Acute Vestibular Syndrome: A Prospective Study.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The epidemiology and clinical presentation of acute vestibular syndromes: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of video head impulse test in stroke diagnosis during acute vestibular syndrome: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Journal of neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Head impulse, nystagmus, and test of skew examination for diagnosing central causes of acute vestibular syndrome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- A Guide to Patients with Acute Transient Vestibular Symptoms in the Emergency Department.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Prediction Model for Etiologic Differentiation of Isolated Vestibular Syndrome in Emergency Settings.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic challenges in posterior circulation ischemic stroke presenting with acute dizziness and vertigo.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Accuracy of First-Line Tests for Posterior Circulation Stroke in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Eye movement features for assisting differentiation between posterior circulation infarction and vestibular neuritis in patients of acute vestibular syndrome.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Video head impulse test in stroke: a review of published studies.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Review
- Bedside Testing in Acute Vestibular Syndrome-Evaluating HINTS Plus and Beyond-A Critical Review.Audiology research · 2023Review
- Modern vestibular tests can accurately separate stroke and vestibular neuritis.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Editorial: Impacts of VEMP and VHIT on the diagnosis of vestibular diseases.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence for early stroke diagnosis in acute vestibular syndrome.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: A three-step bedside test ("HINTS": Head Impulse-Nystagmus-Test of Skew), is a well-established way to differentiate peripheral from central causes in patients with acute vestibular syndrome (AVS). Nowadays, the use of videooculography gives physicians the possibility to quantify all eye movements. The goal of this study is to compare the accuracy of VOG "HINTS" (vHINTS) to an expert evaluation. Methods: We performed a prospective study from July 2015 to April 2020 on all patients presenting at the emergency department with signs of AVS. All the patients underwent clinical HINTS (cHINTS) and vHINTS followed by delayed MRI, which served as a gold standard for stroke confirmation. Results: We assessed 46 patients with AVS, 35 patients with acute unilateral vestibulopathy, and 11 patients with stroke. The overall accuracy of vHINTS in detecting a central pathology was 94.2% with 100% sensitivity and 88.9% specificity. Experts, however, assessed cHINTS with a lower accuracy of 88.3%, 90.9% sensitivity, and 85.7% specificity. The agreement between clinical and video head impulse tests was good, whereas for nystagmus direction was fair. Conclusions: vHINTS proved to be very accurate in detecting strokes in patients AVS, with 9% points better sensitivity than the expert. The evaluation of nystagmus direction was the most difficult part of HINTS.
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.