Trial reportPloS one2026
Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation versus written instructions after acute vertigo: A randomised controlled trial.
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.
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.
Internet-based Vestibular Rehabilitation Versus Standard Care After Acute Onset Vertigo
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.