ArticleEuropean 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
Dutch translation and validation of the Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS).
Article 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. 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVisual vertigo (VV) is dizziness triggered by visually complex environments and is common in vestibular disorders such as Persistent Postural Perceptual Dizziness (PPPD). The Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS) is a validated tool for assessing VV severity, but no Dutch version is currently available.
objectiveThis study involved translating the original English version of the VVAS into Dutch, followed by adaptation and validation to ensure reliability and consistency with the source version.
methodsThe VVAS was translated using forward-backward translation. The final version was tested in 104 participants (PPPD patients and healthy controls). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient), and construct validity (factor analysis and regression modeling) were assessed.
resultsThe Dutch VVAS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93), comparable to the original version. Test-retest reliability was adequate (ICC = 0.67). VVAS scores were significantly higher in PPPD patients compared to healthy controls (p < 0.001), controlling for age and gender.
conclusionThe Dutch VVAS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing VV in Dutch-speaking populations, making it suitable for clinical and research applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40471235What 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.