ArticleJournal of patient experience2026
Patient Perspectives on Episodic Dizziness and a Hypothetical At-Home Diagnostic Tool.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with frequent dizzy attacks will report dissatisfaction with current diagnostic tools and express interest in a wearable at-home dizzy attack monitor. Existing diagnostic approaches for recurrent dizziness are often inadequate, particularly for episodic events that occur outside clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluate patient perspectives on current diagnostic and treatment methods and assess interest in a proposed at-home dizzy attack monitoring device. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 250 adults with self-reported dizzy attacks between December 2021 and January 2022 via Survey Healthcare Global. The survey included expert-reviewed items covering attack frequency, diagnostic experiences, treatment satisfaction, and responses to a conceptual wearable monitor. Of the 250 participants (32% male, 68% female), 43% were dissatisfied with diagnostic tools and 44% with treatments. Dissatisfaction was highest among those experiencing weekly (47% diagnostic, 48% treatment) and daily (46% diagnostic, 54% treatment) attacks. Interest in the hypothetical wearable monitor was reported by 79% overall, increasing to 86% among weekly and 85% among daily attack groups. Patients with frequent dizzy attacks report significant dissatisfaction with current standards of care and show strong interest in novel technology that enables real-time, at-home capture of symptoms to support more accurate diagnosis.
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.