SynthesisPloS one2026
Evidence for motor imagery in the management of vestibular disorders does not support recent guidelines: A systematic search and review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextVestibular disorders significantly impact people's quality of life, affecting functions such as balance and walking. Current treatments involve pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, with vestibular rehabilitation proving effective in helping to compensate for deficits. Although traditional techniques address various aspects of the vestibular system, many fundamental studies suggest motor imagery could reduce vestibular impairment. Despite the paucity of research on motor imagery for vestibular disorder rehabilitation, recent expert recommendations suggest it could enhance functional recovery. This review questions the evidence in the literature on the clinical value benefits of motor imagery as part of vestibular rehabilitation. The aims of this study were 1. to identify motor imagery interventions used in the literature, 2. to critically appraise them, and 3. to report their impact on clinical outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web Of Science, CINAHL and Scopus databases. The review was registered on PROSPERO and is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. PICO criteria were adults undergoing a motor imagery intervention as part of vestibular rehabilitation, studies with or without comparators, and the use of clinical outcome measures. A critical grid was completed, and a risk of bias assessment was performed.
resultsDespite identifying 2404 (after duplicate removal) concerning motor imagery and vestibular rehabilitation, only two articles met our inclusion criteria. Our findings suggest a clinical benefit of integrating motor imagery into vestibular rehabilitation. However, the limited evidence and methodological shortcomings warrant caution, including small sample size, absence of imagery quality assessment, and poor generalizability.
conclusionFuture research should address the identified limitations, including the need to study a broader range of vestibular pathologies, use comprehensive assessments, and evaluate long-term effects. This would contribute to a more thorough understanding of motor imagery as part of vestibular rehabilitation.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42023444673.
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.