ArticleScientific reports2025
Interobserver agreement in BPPV diagnosis using eye movement recordings.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Comprehensive Review of Nystagmus and Vertigo Diagnostics: From Pathological Foundations to AI-Driven Telemedicine.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV) is one of the most prevalent peripheral vestibular disorders seen in specialized dizziness clinics. Despite being a well-understood condition with effective treatment options, BPPV remains associated with significant diagnostic delays and healthcare costs. If proven reliable, telemedicine approaches could help address these challenges by improving diagnostic accessibility and efficiency. To investigate the interobserver agreement in BPPV diagnosis, when using eye movement recordings. Six vestibular medicine specialists (Specialist 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) were recruited to participate in this study. The specialists were asked to evaluate the recordings of 240 patient cases who underwent assessment for BPPV (first assessment). After viewing the recordings of each case, they were required to make a BPPV diagnosis. Five specialists (2, 3, 4, 5, 6) agreed to repeat the procedure twice, to additionally evaluate the intraobserver agreement (second assessment). The proportion of agreement and Cohen's kappa were calculated for both interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Furthermore, agreement with the original diagnoses was evaluated. The interobserver agreement between experts was fair to moderate with a Cohen's kappa value of 0.40 (CI 95% [0.35, 0.45]) and a proportion of agreement of 60% (CI 95% [54, 67]). Specialists 2, 4, and 5 exhibited substantial intraobserver agreement. In contrast, Specialist 3 demonstrated fair intraobserver agreement, while Specialist 6 showed almost perfect intraobserver agreement. Regarding the first assessment, agreement with the original diagnoses ranged from fair to substantial, with kappa values between 0.40 and 0.70, and corresponding percentages between 58 and 78%. Similar results were observed for the second assessment. The interobserver agreement between specialists diagnosing BPPV using eye movement recordings, was fair to moderate. The suboptimal agreement could be related to missing clinical information (e.g. patient history and symptoms during positional maneuvers). Future studies should incorporate this information and reassess interobserver agreement.
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.