Virtual and augmented reality in the vestibular rehabilitation of peripheral vestibular disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vestibular rehabilitation therapy is an established treatment for patients with vestibular dysfunction. Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) can be utilised in vestibular rehabilitation. Evidence of the efficacy of VR and AR delivered rehabilitation in patients with peripheral vestibular disorders is reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychInfo, PsychBITE, OTSeeker, Ei Compendex, IEE, Clinical trials.gov and WebofScience databases were searched. Reduction in vestibular dysfunction symptoms 0-3 months post-intervention was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included long-term symptom improvement and side effects. Risk of bias assessment and meta analyses were planned. Five studies meeting eligibility criteria were included. Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) scores 0-3 months post-intervention were reported by four studies. Meta-analysis identified a 1.13 (95% CI, - 1.74, - 0.52) standardized mean difference reduction in DHI in VR and AR treated patients compared to controls. Side effects reported by two studies were reduced by week four of VR intervention. Bias assessment identified DHI scores and side effects to be at high risk or of some concern. Adjunct VR interventions reduced patient DHI significantly more than vestibular rehabilitation alone 0-3 months post-intervention in adult patients diagnosed with unilateral vestibular disease. High quality studies are needed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".