SynthesisJournal of neurology2026
Effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with multiple sclerosis (MS) frequently experience postural instability, dizziness, and impaired eye-head-body coordination, which reduce mobility and quality of life (QoL). Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) may improve vestibulo-ocular and vestibulo-spinal function.
objectivesTo evaluate the effects of VR on balance, gait function, transfer ability, dizziness, fatigue, depression, and QoL in patients with MS.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to May 2026. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared VR with traditional physiotherapy, usual care, or no intervention. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1.
resultsThirteen RCTs involving 454 patients with MS were included. Compared with the control interventions, VR significantly improved balance (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-2.01), walking speed (MD: 0.19, 95% CI 0.12-0.26), walking endurance (SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.08-0.78), dizziness (MD -10.56, 95% CI -18.42 to -2.71), fatigue (SMD: -1.23, 95% CI -2.25 to -0.21), and depression (MD -4.14, 95% CI -7.16 to -1.12). No significant between-group differences were observed in transfer ability (SMD: -0.58, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.06), balance self-efficacy (MD 14.58, 95% CI -2.92 to 32.09), or QoL (SMD 0.51, 95% CI-0.45 to 1.48).
conclusionsVR may improve balance, walking speed, walking endurance, dizziness, fatigue, and depression in patients with MS; however, the certainty of evidence is generally low or very low. Therefore, larger RCTs are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42658257What 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.