Trial reportPloS one2025
Multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study of the effect of prolonged noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation on posture or gait in vestibulopathy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wearable Technologies for Gait Instability Rehabilitation: Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Optimizing Vestibular Rehabilitation: From Neuroplastic Mechanisms to Multimodal Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial aimed to evaluate whether prolonged noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation improves body balance in patients with vestibulopathy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis trial was registered in the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center Clinical Trials Information registry (jRCT1080224083). Subjects were 20- to 85-year-old patients who had been unsteady for more than one year and whose symptoms had persisted despite more than six months of rehabilitation. Enrolled subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups; one group received the optimal intensity of noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation first and then the placebo 14 days later, the other was evaluated in the reverse order. The primary outcome was the difference of the mean percent change from the baseline in the velocity of center of pressure during 3 h of stimulation between the noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation and placebo periods. This was analyzed with the mixed effects model.
resultsForty-two subjects were enrolled. The mean percent change in the velocity during stimulation for 3 h was -9.3% (SD 19.9%) for noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation and -12.6% (SD 15.0%) for placebo. No significant effects of noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation over placebo were found for velocity in the least-squares means of the difference [3.1% (95% CI -0.2 to 6.4, p = 0.066)].
conclusionProlonged noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation did not significantly improve body balance in patients with poorly-compensated vestibulopathy.
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.