ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2023
Video Head Impulse Test: A Comparison and Analysis of Three Recording Systems.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Video Head Impulse Test in Children-A Systematic Review of Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Neurological update: neuro-otology 2023.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and reproducibility of three existing systems in a group of healthy individuals for vHIT. A prospective randomized study was conducted on 12 healthy individuals. The vHIT tests were carried out. The values of the gains for the 3SCCs of each ear were collected using the three devices. The expected average gain of 1 was the gain standard. The statistical significance in the difference in gains were assessed. There is good reproducibility of the results of the vHIT examination. EyeSeeCam appeared to be the worst performing system with a slightly overstated average gain of 1.15. Otometrics has longest average examination time per patient. Synapsis is the system with the best quality/time invested and easiest to access. Video head impulse system depends on the examiner's preference, reproducible and superimposable depending on the examiner and experience.
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.