Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42284306›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2026

Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation versus written instructions after acute vertigo: A randomised controlled trial.

Solmaz Surano, Ellen Lindell, Jan Mathé, Hugo Davidsson, Tatjana Tomanovic, Maria Bjurman, Erik Faergemann, Torbjörn Ledin, Anette Rostmark, Helena Grip and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05056324 (Internet-based Vestibular Rehabilitation Versus Standard Care After Acute Onset Vertigo), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05056324 nacompletednot on this map

Internet-based Vestibular Rehabilitation Versus Standard Care After Acute Onset Vertigo

TypeinterventionalSponsorUmeå UniversityRan2021 to 2025Enrolled184ConditionsAcute Vestibular SyndromeArmsOnline vestibular rehabilitation tool, Standard care (written instructions leaflet)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Solmaz SuranoDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Neurosciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3430-3101
Ellen LindellDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jan MathéDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hugo DavidssonDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Tatjana TomanovicDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5722-7893
Maria BjurmanDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Neurosciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Erik FaergemannDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Neurosciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6508-2487
Torbjörn LedinDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Anette RostmarkDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Neurosciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Helena GripDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical Engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1635-122X
Fredrik ÖhbergDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Biomedical Engineering and Radiation Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Gabriel GranåsenDepartment of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Jonatan SalzerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Neurosciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9205-0771

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute vestibular syndrome (AVS) causes sudden and continuous vertigo, dizziness, and postural instability and is a common reason for emergency department visits, most commonly due to vestibular neuritis and, in rare cases, stroke. Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) is an evidence-based exercise therapy that facilitates vestibular compensation and is effective in chronic vestibular disorders. However, evidence for VR in acute vertigo remains limited and, despite guideline support, it remains underused in practice. Internet-based VR has demonstrated benefit in chronic dizziness but has not been evaluated in acute vertigo. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an internet-based VR tool compared with standard care (written instructions) in reducing vestibular symptoms after acute onset vertigo. METHODS AND

findingsA multicentre, randomised, evaluator-blinded superiority trial was conducted across nine hospitals in Sweden. Adults with ongoing AVS were recruited within 1-7 days after symptom onset and randomised (1:1) to six weeks of internet-based VR with personalised, progressively adjusted home exercises or to written instructions for home-based VR exercises. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in vestibular symptoms at six weeks measured using the Vertigo Symptom Scale Short Form (VSS-SF; range 0-60), with a difference of ≥3 points prespecified as clinically significant. Secondary outcomes included dizziness-related disability, walking speed, and balance. Of 184 randomised participants, 183 were included in the analyses (94 online VR; 89 written instructions; median age 56 years). In the intention-to-treat analysis, both groups improved at six weeks, with no significant between-group difference (adjusted mean difference -2.0 points, 95% CI -4.9 to 0.9; p = 0.18). Per-protocol analyses were consistent (-1.7 points, 95% CI -4.7 to 1.3; p = 0.27). Over 12 weeks, both groups showed reduced vestibular symptoms and improved disability, balance, and walking speed, without significant between-group differences. No serious adverse events were attributed to the interventions, and compliance was high in both groups.

conclusionsInternet-based VR was not superior to written instructions in reducing vestibular symptoms six weeks after acute onset vertigo. Both groups demonstrated improvement from baseline, with no statistically significant between-group differences. These findings suggest that ensuring access to vestibular rehabilitation exercises may be more important than the specific mode of delivery after acute onset vertigo, and internet-based tools represent viable alternatives for patients who prefer or may benefit from a digital format.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT05056324. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05056324. Registered on September 24, 2021.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyInternetVertigoAcute DiseaseAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSwedenTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID42284306
PMCPMC13262863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.