SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Comparative efficacy and safety of repositioning maneuvers for posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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.
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
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of different repositioning maneuvers for posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to August 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the Epley, Semont, Brandt-Daroff, and other repositioning maneuvers for posterior canal BPPV were included. Two reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. Network meta-analysis and league tables were generated using StataSE 15 and R 4.4.3, respectively. Results: Twenty RCTs involving 2,089 patients were included. The Epley maneuver ranked highest in overall effectiveness, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) of 97.84%, and was significantly superior to the Semont maneuver (RR = 1.04), the Brandt-Daroff maneuver (RR = 1.35) and control (RR = 1.30). For cure rate, the Epley and Semont maneuvers performed best and were significantly more effective than other interventions. For recurrence rate, the quality of evidence was generally low, and no optimal strategy could be identified. For safety, the incidence of nausea, vomiting and dizziness showed no statistically significant differences among the Epley, Semont and Brandt-Daroff maneuvers, although SUCRA rankings indicated a more favorable safety profile for the Epley maneuver. Conclusion: The Epley and Semont maneuvers demonstrated optimal short-term efficacy (effectiveness and cure rate) with favorable safety profiles for posterior canal BPPV and should be recommended as first-line repositioning strategies. Future high-quality studies are needed to clarify the long-term effects on recurrence and applicability in specific populations. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD420250653366.
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.