ArticleBMC primary care2025
Identifying tests to evaluate in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. 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.
- The BPPV-SQ: Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Brief Screening Questionnaire for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo.Audiology research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVertigo is a common symptom that strongly impacts patients' quality of life. More than 80% of patients experiencing vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP). The GP's'diagnostic toolkit' for vertigo has serious limitations, though, because diagnostic accuracy studies on conditions that may cause vertigo have never been performed in a general practice setting. Our aim was to determine which tests should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice.
methodWe conducted an online Delphi procedure involving national and international experts. The experts were asked to judge a selection of 40 diagnostic tests based on the Dutch GP guideline on vestibular symptoms, supplemented by tests identified during a systematic review. Panellists were allowed to suggest additional tests after the first round. In case of consensus of at least 70%, a test was included or excluded. We also conducted a secondary sub-analysis of our Delphi procedure to demonstrate non-dominance of Dutch experts within our expert panel. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.
resultsA panel of 20 experts from five countries, including 7 specialists in otolaryngology, 6 neurologists and 7 GPs, participated in the Delphi procedure. The panel judged 46 diagnostic tests in total, with 6 additional tests added to the original selection based on suggestions by experts. After the first two rounds (100% response rate), 16 tests were included, 22 tests were excluded and no consensus was reached on 8 tests. During the consensus round, one of the 8 tests was added to the included 16 tests. Of these 17 tests, 15 are recommended by the Dutch GP guideline, supplemented by the non-recommended Tandem walking test and the Romberg test.
conclusionsAn international expert panel reached consensus on 17 tests for vertigo in general practice that should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study.
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.