ArticleOtology & neurotology open2024
Comparing Video Head Impulse Testing in Patients With Acute Vestibular Dysfunction.
Article in Otology & neurotology open, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The video head impulse test (v-HIT) can evaluate the function of all semicircular canals (SCCs) in a short period. In this work, we sought to compare v-HIT results among 2 commercially available devices, the ICS impulse (Otometrics, Denmark) (ICS) and Eye See Cam (Interacoustics, Denmark) (ESC), among individuals with unilateral vestibular disorders. Design: Retrospective study (n = 15). Setting: St. Marianna University School of Medicine Hospital. Patients: Fifteen patients with acute unilateral vestibular disorders. Intervention: Two v-HIT devices were conducted across patients to compare the results of the 2 models. Main Outcome Measures: Gain values and pathological saccades for each SCC were compared across the 2 models. Monothermal caloric testing was performed to compare alongside v-HIT gain values. Results: There was no difference between the 2 models for the evaluation of the horizontal SCCs. There was a significant negative correlation (ESC: r = -0.52, ICS: r = -0.53) between caloric testing and the gain values of the 2 models. In the vertical SCCs, the gain values of ESC were significantly higher than the gain values of ICS. Detection of catch-up saccades in vertical SCCs was similar across the 2 models. Conclusion: For the horizontal SCCs, there was no difference in test results between the 2 models. However, in the vertical SCCs, gain values were variable across the 2 devices. Larger scale studies are needed to develop normative ranges for the vertical canals.
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.