Symptom Resolution Rates of Posttraumatic versus Nontraumatic Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of symptom resolution in patients with posttraumatic benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) and to determine if it differs from resolution rates in patients with BPPV and without a history of head trauma. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. English and French articles meeting inclusion criteria and published between 1946 and October 2014 were included. REVIEW METHODS: Data were independently extracted from the articles by 2 reviewers using data collection forms developed a priori. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were decided a priori. Studies were included if they reported on at least 1 case of posttraumatic BPPV (t-BPPV), reported on outcomes of all patients with t-BPPV, had a clearly defined inception point, and provided a clear diagnosis of BPPV (defined a priori by reviewers). RESULTS: A total of 3017 titles, 362 abstracts, and 67 articles were reviewed, from which 16 articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data extraction. There were a total of 207 patients with posttraumatic BPPV identified. Among the 207 patients, 151 (73%) had resolution of symptoms. The T-BPPV patients may have more multi-canal involvement and may require more repositioning maneuvers for resolution compared to patients with nontraumatic BPPV. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence does not support the notion that symptom resolution rates in patients with posttraumatic BPPV are worse than those with nontraumatic BPPV. However, well-designed studies with adequate cohorts are lacking. Additional well-executed studies are needed to confirm this lack of difference in resolution rates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".