MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469713595 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1190870

Effects of balance Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy in elderly with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: a randomized controlled trial

2016· article· en· W2469713595 on OpenAlexaff
Karyna Myrelly Oliveira Bezerra de Figueiredo Ribeiro, Raysa Vanessa de Medeiros Freitas, Lidiane Maria de Brito Macedo Ferreira, Nandini Deshpande, Ricardo Oliveira Guerra

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteUniversity of Pittsburgh
KeywordsBalance (ability)Benign paroxysmal positional vertigoRandomized controlled trialMedicineDynamic balanceBalance problemsVertigoRehabilitationPhysical therapyVestibular systemQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationBalance trainingPosturographyBalance disordersAudiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate short-term effects of balance Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy (VRT) on balance, dizziness symptoms and quality of life of the elderly with chronic Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). METHOD: In this randomized, single-blind and controlled trial, older adults with chronic BPPV were randomized into two groups, the experimental group (n = 7, age: 69 (65-78) years) and the control group (n = 7, age: 73 (65-76) years). Patients in the experimental group underwent balance VRT (50 min per session, two times a week) and Canalith Repositioning Maneuver (CRM) as required, for 13 weeks. The control group was treated using only CRM as required. Standing and dynamic balance, dizziness symptoms and quality of life were measured at the baseline, and at one, five, nine and thirteen weeks. RESULTS: There were no between-group differences in dizziness, quality of life and standing balance over the 13 weeks. Significant differences were observed in dynamic balance measures between groups (p < 0.05 for most tests) through assessments. In intragroup analysis, both groups showed improvements in all measurements except no improvement was found in majority of the dynamic balance tests in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The patients who received additional balance VRT demonstrated better results in dynamic balance than those who received only CRM. Implications for Rehabilitation The findings that balance VRT in addition to CRM improves dynamic balance in elderly people with BPPV should be useful in guiding rehabilitation professionals' clinical decision making to design interventions for seniors suffering from BPPV; Improvements in tests of dynamic balance suggest that the risk of adverse consequences of BPPV in the elderly such as falls and fractures can be potentially reduced through implementation of CRM in conjunction with balance VRT; Lack of additional improvement in Visual Analogue Scale of dizziness and Dizziness Handicap Index suggests that addition of balance VRT does not influence dizziness symptomatology, per se, and CRM alone is effective to ameliorate vertiginous symptoms and potentially improve quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207