Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and asymmetric hearing loss: is the worst hearing ear likely to suffer from otoconial displacement?

PURPOSE

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) may be found in patients complaining of hearing disorders. The aim of our investigation was to describe audiological findings in BPPV patients, focusing on subjects with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), to better understand whether otoconial displacement may occur preferentially in the worst hearing ear.

METHODS

A prospective study was performed on 112 BPPV patients. We divided the sample into subjects who suffered from AHL (G1) and patients with did not (G2). Data regarding vestibular symptoms, tinnitus, migraine, antivertigo drug therapy, and vascular risk factors were collected.

RESULTS

Out of 30 AHL subjects, 83.33% of them were affected by sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) in at least one ear, with a significant difference in the distribution of hearing loss type between groups (p = 0.0006). In 70% of cases, the ear affected by BPPV was the one with the worst hearing threshold (p = 0.02); threshold asymmetry predicted BPPV in the worst hearing ear (p = 0.03). The predictability depended neither on the hearing threshold gap between ears nor the severity of the hearing threshold in the worst ear (p > 0.05). No differences in vascular risk factors between groups were observed (p > 0.05). We evidenced a moderate correlation between age and hearing threshold (ρ = 0.43). Age did not result a predictive factor for residual dizziness or BPPV in the worst ear (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supports the likelihood of an otoconial displacement in the worse hearing ear in BPPV patients. Clinicians should start testing the worst hearing ear when managing AHL patients with suspected BPPV.

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo in a young child

A girl in her early childhood presented to a regional otolaryngology outpatient clinic with classic signs of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). She reported episodic dizziness when rolling in a supine position. She did not convey any other associated audiovestibular symptoms. A bedside Dix-Hallpike test confirmed geotropic rotational nystagmus indicative of lateral canal BPPV. Due to her young age, limited communicative abilities and concerns for more sinister underlying pathology, a complete neurological examination, MRI and pure tone audiometry were performed. After two sessions of Epley's manoeuvre, she was symptom-free. At her 3-month follow-up, the patient denied any recurrent episodes of vertigo.

Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

OBJECTIVE

Engaging stakeholders in reviews is considered to generate more relevant evidence and to facilitate dissemination and use. As little is known about stakeholder involvement, we assessed the characteristics of their engagement in systematic and rapid reviews and the methodological quality of included studies. Stakeholders were people with a particular interest in the research topic.

DESIGN

Methodological review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, databases of the University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)) were searched based on an a priori protocol. Four types of reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, rapid and CRD rapid reviews) were retrieved between January 2011 and October 2015, pooled by potential review type and duplicates excluded. Articles were randomly ordered and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria until 30 reviews per group were reached. Their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and stakeholder characteristics were collected.

RESULTS

In total, 57 822 deduplicated citations were detected with potential non-Cochrane systematic reviews being the biggest group (56 986 records). We found stakeholder involvement in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane, 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane, 43% (13/30) of rapid and 93% (28/30) of CRD reviews. Overall, 33% (17/51) of the responding contact authors mentioned positive effects of stakeholder involvement. A conflict of interest statement remained unmentioned in 40% (12/30) of non-Cochrane and in 27% (8/30) of rapid reviews, but not in Cochrane or CRD reviews. At most, half of non-Cochrane and rapid reviews mentioned an a priori study protocol in contrast to all Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSION

Stakeholder engagement was not general practice, except for CRD reviews, although it was more common in rapid reviews. Reporting factors, such as including an a priori study protocol and a conflict of interest statement should be considered in conjunction with involving stakeholders.

Development and face validation of a Virtual Reality Epley Maneuver System (VREMS) for home Epley treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: A randomized, controlled trial

PURPOSE

To develop and validate a smartphone based Virtual Reality Epley Maneuver System (VREMS) for home use.

METHODS

A smartphone application was designed to produce stereoscopic views of a Virtual Reality (VR) environment, which when viewed after placing a smartphone in a virtual reality headset, allowed the user to be guided step-by-step through the Epley maneuver in a VR environment. Twenty healthy participants were recruited and randomized to undergo either assisted Epleys or self-administered Epleys following reading instructions from an Instructional Handout (IH). All participants were filmed and two expert Otologists reviewed the videos, assigning each participant a score (out of 10) for performance on each step. Participants rated their perceived workload by completing a validated task-load questionnaire (NASA Task Load Index) and averages for both groups were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty participants were evaluated with average age 26.4±7.12years old in the VREMS group and 26.1±7.72 in the IH group. The VR assisted group achieved an average score of 7.78±0.99 compared to 6.65±1.72 in the IH group. This result was statistically significant with p=0.0001 and side dominance did not appear to play a factor. Analyzing each step of the Epley maneuver demonstrated that assisted Epleys were done more accurately with statically significant results in steps 2-4. Results of the NASA-TLX scores were variable with no significant findings.

CONCLUSION

We have developed and demonstrated face validity for VREMS through our randomized controlled trial. The VREMS platform is promising technology, which may improve the accuracy and effectiveness of home Epley treatments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Value of CT Imaging in Diagnosing Otosclerosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT) in detecting otosclerosis in patients with conductive hearing loss and a clinical suspicion of otosclerosis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.

STUDY SELECTION

A systematic search was conducted. Studies reporting original study data were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Relevance and risk of bias of the selected articles were assessed. Studies with low relevance, high risk of bias, or both were excluded. Prevalences, sensitivities, specificities, and post-test probabilities were extracted from the included articles.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seven studies characterized by a moderate to high relevance and moderate to low risk of bias were included for data extraction. The prevalence of otosclerosis was high (up to 100%) in the majority of the included studies. In those studies with a high prevalence of disease, both positive and negative post-test probabilities were (relatively) high: 99% and between 51% and 67% respectively. In one study with a low prevalence of disease (9%), both positive and negative post-test probabilities were low (23% and 3% respectively). Overall, reported sensitivities ranged between 60% and 95%.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative CT has little to add in establishing otosclerosis and may not be necessary to confirm the diagnosis. We would recommend reserving CT for those patients with suspected additional abnormalities, for specific preoperative planning, or out of legal necessity.

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines

BACKGROUND

Rapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.

RESULTS

Sixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.