Assessment of Balance Deficits in at Risk Pediatric Populations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess balance deficits in children at risk due to hearing loss or dizziness. The specific objectives were to: (1) measure the prevalence of poor balance in children presenting with these risks; (2) determine whether vestibular test results can predict balance deficits in these children. BACKGROUND: While vestibular impairment is a known predictor of poor balance, poor balance may also occur for reasons unrelated to vestibular impairment. Poor balance in some children with hearing loss relates directly to the risks to the vestibular system due to its shared anatomical and physiological characteristics with the cochlea. Balance and/or vestibular problems may also be present in children with normal hearing who report dizziness or in children with hearing loss who have intact vestibular systems. Variability in the impact of risk factors for poor balance can lead to gaps and delays in identification as well as access to appropriate treatment. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of vestibular and balance function from two sources, the SickKids Vertigo Clinic and the SickKids Cochlear Implant Vestibular database, was conducted. The average age of children with hearing loss (n = 107) was 11.56 years (SD = 3.94), while the average age of children without hearing loss (n = 227) was 11.52 years (SD = 3.74). Both groups included children who had available vestibular and balance testing. Balance function was measured using the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Vestibular assessments included tests of vestibulo-collic reflex (VCR) (cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials [cVEMP]) and the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) (caloric testing and the video head impulse test [vHIT]). Mixed model regression was used to compare balance results between groups and evaluate the effects of vestibular findings (vestibular impairment versus normal vestibular), degree of vestibular loss, and site of vestibular impairment (VCR versus VOR) on balance. RESULTS: Results revealed a higher prevalence of abnormal balance in children with hearing loss compared to children presenting with dizziness complaints and normal hearing [38% versus 17%, t (198.37) = -4.90, p < 0.01]. Abnormal balance function was more frequent in children with hearing loss, where VOR tests were abnormal (27.38% versus 14.52%, χ² = 3.95, p < 0.05). Children with hearing loss had significantly higher odds of having abnormal balance if they had >75% abnormal VOR test results (odds ratio of 13.71 [95% confidence interval: 2.88, 65.36]). Abnormal vestibular findings were most common in children whose hearing loss was associated with congenital cytomegalovirus, infections, or genetic syndromes. There was no consistent pattern of vestibular test abnormalities linked to balance issues in the dizzy normal hearing group. CONCLUSIONS: Balance problems are prevalent in children at risk, occurring more often in children with hearing loss than in children reporting dizziness, and are more clearly associated with VOR than VCR impairments. Balance function should be assessed in children with hearing loss who are old enough to do the test. Vestibular testing, particularly assessment of the VOR, can be used in younger children to highlight the present as well as the potential for future balance problems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».