Canalith repositioning maneuver for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: randomized controlled trial in family practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the canalith repositioning maneuver (CRM) is effective for treating benign paroxysmal positional vertigo when it is used by family physicians in primary care settings. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. SETTING: An academic family practice in Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one patients 18 years or older whose dizziness was confirmed by the Dix-Hallpike (DH) vertigo-triggering maneuver and who had no contraindications to the CRM. INTERVENTIONS: At the first visit, the intervention group received the CRM and the control group received a sham maneuver. Both groups received the CRM at the second and third visits 1 and 2 weeks later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Negative results of the DH test or self-reported resolution of vertigo after the initial treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were randomized and received the first treatment. After the first treatment, 34.2% of patients in the intervention group and 14.6% of patients in the control group had negative DH test results (relative risk 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 5.2, P = .04); and 31.6% of patients in the intervention group and 24.4% of patients in the control group reported resolution of dizziness (relative risk 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.9, P = .48). One week later, patients in both intervention and control groups received the CRM, and 61.8% and 57.1% of them, respectively, had negative DH test results (P = .81). By week 3, approximately 75% of patients in both groups had improved. CONCLUSION: A statistically significant proportion of patients in the CRM group returned to a negative response to the DH maneuver immediately after the first treatment. Family physicians can use the CRM to treat benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and potentially avoid delays in treatment and unnecessary referrals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00182273 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".