SynthesisJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2026
The Effectiveness of Vestibular Rehabilitation in Vestibular Migraine: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2026. 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
This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in managing vestibular migraine (VM) symptoms in adults. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to September 30, 2024. Additional searches included the NIH Clinical Trials Register and WHO ICTRP. Key search terms included: ("Vestibular migraine" OR "migraine-associated vertigo" OR "migrainous vertigo" OR "migraine-associated dizziness") AND ("Vestibular rehabilitation" OR "Vestibular exercis*" OR "balance rehabilitation" OR "balance physiotherapy" OR "exercis*"). Studies were excluded if they were non-English studies, irrelevant topics or unacceptable study types. Eligible studies included adults over 18 years diagnosed with VM based on Barany or Neuhauser criteria, excluding those with severe comorbidities or other causes of vertigo. Comparisons involved VR versus alternative treatments or controls, using outcome measures such as subjective scales (DHI, DGI, HADS) and performance tests. Data on design, sample size, age, sex, interventions, comparators, outcomes, results, and follow-up were extracted. Eleven studies (six prospective, three retrospective, two RCTs) with 977 participants (mean age 48.46) were analyzed. VR interventions included adaptation, substitution, habituation, balance, and gait exercises, delivered home-based, therapist-supervised, or combined. Significant improvements in vertigo, dizziness, imbalance, headache, anxiety, and depression were noted, with ten studies showing better DHI scores. However, high bias risk stemmed from limited randomization, blinding, and self-reported measures. In conclusion, VR proves to be effective for managing dizziness, balance, and psychological outcomes in VM, offering a non-pharmacologic option. Future research should prioritize standardized interventions, larger cohorts, and long-term follow-ups.
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.