ArticleJournal of otology2026
Adaptive rehabilitation training for vestibular semicircular canal injury based on virtual reality technology.
Article in Journal of otology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of an adaptive vestibular rehabilitation training system based on Virtual Reality (VR) technology for patients with semicircular canal injury. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 60 patients diagnosed with peripheral vestibular vertigo. Participants were randomly assigned to either an Intervention Group (n=30), which received VR-based adaptive vestibular rehabilitation using the PICO 4 Pro system, or a Control Group (n=30), which underwent traditional vestibular rehabilitation. Both groups received training for four weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). Secondary outcomes included balance performance assessed via the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale and static posturography (Maximum Sway Path Length and Sway Area). Vestibular function was objectively evaluated using the Video Head Impulse Test (vHIT) and the Bithermal Caloric Test. Psychological status was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results: Post-intervention analysis revealed that the Intervention Group achieved significantly lower DHI scores compared to the Control Group. In terms of balance, the Intervention Group demonstrated significantly higher ABC Scale scores and reduced Maximum Sway Path Length and Sway Area compared to controls. Furthermore, the Intervention Group showed a significantly lower rate of abnormal findings in both vHIT and Bithermal Caloric Tests, indicating improved physiological function. Improvements in psychological well-being were also observed, with the Intervention Group exhibiting significantly lower HADS scores. Conclusion: VR-based adaptive vestibular rehabilitation is effective in alleviating vertigo symptoms, enhancing balance function, and improving psychological well-being. The intervention also promotes the physiological recovery of semicircular canal function, demonstrating superior clinical efficacy compared to traditional rehabilitation methods.
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.