SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025
Efficacy of vestibular rehabilitation using unidirectional rotation paradigm in VOR asymmetry: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07364955 (Prospective Comparative Clinical Study of Three Parallel Cohorts on the Efficacy of Pre- and Post-surgical Vestibular Rehabilitation With or Without Rotary Stimulation in Patients With Vestibular Schwannoma), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Prospective Comparative Clinical Study of Three Parallel Cohorts on the Efficacy of Pre- and Post-surgical Vestibular Rehabilitation With or Without Rotary Stimulation in Patients With Vestibular Schwannoma
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUnilateral vestibular dysfunction leads to significant asymmetry in the horizontal vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) during swift head movements. This reflex can be enhanced through rehabilitation exercises and visual-vestibular adaptation techniques. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness of unidirectional rotation treatments for improving symptoms and function in patients with vestibular disorders.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, using databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Scopus. Included were experimental studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or pilot RCTs. Meta-analysis was performed based on the findings of these studies.
resultsAmong 24 articles identified, three addressed the systematic review's question, two observational studies (one retrospective and one prospective) and a RCT. Studies included data from a total of 200 participants with vestibular disorders (n = 96; 48% males) for the meta-analysis. A meta-analysis, including a subgroup analysis, was conducted to assess the improvement in VOR asymmetry following vestibular rehabilitation. The analysis compared pre- and post-rehabilitation directional preponderance (DP) across three studies. Results showed a significant improvement in VOR asymmetry, with a mean difference of 18.72% in favour of rehabilitation.
conclusionOur findings substantiate the efficacy of unilateral vestibular stimulation in reducing asymmetry in the VOR among patients with vestibular dysfunction. This modality represents a promising rehabilitation strategy, significantly enhancing vestibular function and patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40102225What 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.