ReviewActa neurologica Belgica2026
Vestibular rehabilitation in unilateral/bilateral vestibular hypofunction: a systematic review.
Review in Acta neurologica Belgica, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review was to investigate whether vestibular rehabilitation (VR) can improve balance, symptoms and quality of life in individuals diagnosed with unilateral or bilateral vestibular hypofunction (VH).
methodsThe methodology used to conduct this systematic review was based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The first step in the methodology was to conduct a thorough literature search to identify all published studies concerning vestibular rehabilitation and bilateral VH. This search resulted in a total of 509 studies found from six different electronic databases including; PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Science Direct; however, to be included in the review randomized controlled trials and prospective interventional studies. Each of the randomised controlled trial's risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool.
resultsOf the 509 records identified, eight studies comprising 397 participants met the inclusion criteria. Study populations included both male and female patients with unilateral or bilateral VH, presenting in acute or chronic stages. VR was consistently associated with significant improvements in dizziness severity, balance performance, functional mobility, and quality of life, as assessed using validated outcome measures such as the Dizziness Handicap Inventory, Visual Analog Scale, Timed Up and Go, and Berg Balance Scale. Improvements were observed in both intervention and control groups; however, more pronounced improvements were observed in the intervention groups, particularly in studies utilizing virtual reality-based, head-mounted display-assisted, or gaming-supported vestibular rehabilitation programs. Due to heterogeneity in study design, intervention protocols, and outcome measures, quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible.
conclusionThe systematic review suggests VR can be of benefit to patients with both unilateral and bilateral VH. Using technology based and/or virtual reality techniques should provide additive benefits over traditional rehabilitation techniques with respect to balance, dizziness severity, and functional outcome measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42828669What 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.