Trial reportFrontiers in neurology2026
Epley maneuver versus 360° maneuver for treatment of posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo in a mechanical rotation chair: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Frontiers in neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05834452 (Treatment of Posterior Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo With Mechanical Rotational Chair), 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.
Treatment of Posterior Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo With Mechanical Rotational Chair: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Epley and 360° Maneuvers.
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
Objective: To compare the treatment efficacy of the Epley maneuver and the 360° maneuver in a cohort diagnosed with posterior benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) using a mechanical rotation chair (MRC). Study design: Open-label parallel group randomized controlled trial. Setting: Tertiary university hospital-based outpatient clinic. Participants: Adults ( Interventions: Participants were randomized to treatment with either the Epley- or the 360° maneuver. Follow-up visits were scheduled biweekly until treatment was successful or up to five treatments were given. By use of questionnaires, patient-reported outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after successful treatment. Subjective recurrences were assessed at 3- and 6-month follow-up questionnaires. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: treatment success after one treatment. Secondary outcomes: number of treatments to obtain treatment success, Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), visual analogue scale (VAS) of vertigo, maneuver tolerability, and subjective recurrence. Results: Treatment success after one treatment was comparable between the groups (risk difference (RD): -0.12 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.32, 0.07)). The cumulative probability of treatment success across treatments showed no clear difference between groups (hazard ratio: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.21). Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in DHI and VAS of vertigo, with no between-group differences. Subjective recurrence rates were also similar. Conclusion: Epley- and 360° maneuvers with an MRC demonstrated similar treatment efficacy across objective and patient-reported outcomes, suggesting flexibility in the maneuver choice. Further research should investigate optimization of treatment protocols and long-term follow-up regarding recurrence patterns. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT05834452.
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.