Effectiveness of the particle repositioning maneuver for benign positional vertigo following traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this pilot project was to explore the clinical presentation of benign positional vertigo (BPV) in patients with mild or moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to determine if a non-invasive bedside intervention, the Particle Repositioning Maneuver (PRM) would be effective in treating BPV. Design Observational, cohort prospective study, with repeated measures of three groups of patients diagnosed with TBI. Setting Subjects were recruited from an out-patient clinic specialising in the management of TBI in a large, urban, academic hospital. Participants 56 subjects with mild to moderate TBI: 21 patients with BPV, 23 with non-specific dizziness, and 12 without any form of dizziness. Intervention Patients were assessed at baseline and at 1, 5, 9 weeks and 3 months post-enrollment. BPV was confirmed by the administration of the Dix-Hall Pike Maneuver to patients with dizziness at each assessment and those positive for BPV received PRM treatment. Outcome Measures Demographic and injury-related data were collected and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) were administered at each assessment. Mean difference in DHI scores between baseline and follow-ups were assessed. Results DHI scores were significantly reduced in the BPV group (20.6; p<0.01) and dizziness symptoms had resolved in 52% of patients. A significant improvement on the SF-36 physical component scores was found for the BPV group (increasing from 38.1 at baseline to 45.7 at 3 months; p<0.01) Conclusions Our pilot study demonstrated both significantly improved dizziness symptoms and physical wellbeing for BPV patients who received PRM treatment. Competing interestsNone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".