ArticleJournal of audiology & otology2022
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Application of Virtual Reality in Hearing Disorders.
Article in Journal of audiology & otology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical trials in otology and neurotology: state of the science.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTrendy technologies, such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) are being increasingly used for hearing loss, tinnitus, and vestibular disease. Thus, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the possible benefits of the use of VR and AR technologies in patients with hearing loss, tinnitus, and/or vestibular dysfunction, with the aim of suggesting potential applications of these technologies for both researchers and clinicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsPublished articles from 1968 to 2022 were gathered from six electronic journal databases. Applying our specified inclusion and/or exclusion criteria, 23 studies were analyzed. As only one article on hearing loss and two articles on tinnitus were found, 20 studies on vestibular dysfunction were only finally included for the meta-analysis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were chosen as estimates to compare the studies. A funnel plot and Egger's regression analysis were used to identify any risk of bias.
resultsHigh heterogeneity (I2: 83%, τ2: 0.5431, p<0.01) was identified across the studies on vestibular dysfunction. VR-based rehabilitation was significantly effective for individuals with vestibular disease (SMDs: 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.08 to 0.15, p<0.05). A subgroup analysis revealed that only improvement in the subjective questionnaire was meaningful and statistically significant (SMDs: -0.66, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.22).
conclusionsVR-based vestibular rehabilitation showed potential for subjective rating measures like Dizziness Handicap Index. The negative effect of aging on vestibular disease was indirectly confirmed. More clinical trials and an evidence-based approach are needed to confirm the implementation of state-of-the-art technology for hearing loss and tinnitus, representative diseases in neurotology.
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.