Particle Repositioning Manoeuvre in Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: Is It Really Safe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A prospective study to determine the safety of the particle repositioning manoeuvre (PRM) by analyzing the various complications of the procedure. SETTINGS: Outpatient Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Nehru Hospital, Chandigarh, India. METHODS: Thirty patients with the classic findings of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) were included in the study. Clinical symptoms prior to the procedure were noted. Twenty-nine of them were subjected to PRM, and postprocedural instructions were given to all patients. Various side effects during and following the procedure were recorded. They were classified into early and late based on the period and into major and minor based on severity. All patients were reviewed after 3 days, 7 days, and 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 29 patients, 19 patients (65.52%) had heaviness in the head, with 11 each (37.93%) reporting nausea and imbalance and 9 (31.03%) reporting instability during the procedure. A major complication, asystole, was noted in one patient. The percentage of side effects remained more or less the same in the early phase following the procedure. Only 5 of 29 patients were entirely asymptomatic. Ninety percent were relieved of symptoms by the end of 7 days, with no major complication recorded. CONCLUSIONS: PRM is an easy, effective, and relatively safe procedure. The risk of major complications with PRM, such as arrhythmias and asystole, highlights the need to consider other management modalities for BPPV in certain medically unfit patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".