MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284678993 · doi:10.2147/prom.s370287

Patients’ Experiences with Management of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: Insights from the Vestibular Disorders Association Registry

2022· article· en· W4284678993 on OpenAlexaff
Colin R. Grove, Wagner Souza Silva, Patricia Gerend, Cynthia Ryan, Michael C. Schubert

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Related Outcome Measures · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBenign paroxysmal positional vertigoPatient registryPsychological interventionPediatricsVertigoVestibular disordersPhysical therapySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most frequently occurring peripheral vestibular disorder. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for BPPV exist; however, little is known about how affected patients perceive their condition is being managed. We aimed to leverage registry data to evaluate how adults who report BPPV are managed. Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed of data from 1,262 adults (58.4 ± 12.6 years old, 81.1% female, 91.1% White) who were enrolled in the Vestibular Disorders Association Registry from 2014 to 2020. The following patient-reported outcomes were analyzed by proportions for those who did and did not report BPPV: symptoms experienced, falls reported, diagnostics undertaken, interventions received (eg, canalith repositioning maneuvers [CRMs], medications), and responses to interventions. Results: Of the 1,262 adults included, 26% reported being diagnosed with BPPV. Many adults who reported BPPV (83%) also endorsed receiving additional vestibular diagnoses or may have had atypical BPPV. Those with BPPV underwent magnetic resonance imaging and were prescribed medications more frequently than those without BPPV (76% vs 57% [χ 2 =36.51, p< 0.001] and 85% vs 78% [χ 2 =5.60, p=0.018], respectively). Falls were experienced by similar proportions of adults with and without BPPV (55% vs 56% [χ 2= =11.26, p=0.59]). Adults with BPPV received CRMs more often than those without BPPV (86% vs 48%, χ 2 =127.23, p< 0.001). More registrants with BPPV also endorsed benefit from CRMs compared to those without BPPV (51% vs 12% [χ 2 =105.30, p< 0.001]). Discussion: In this registry, BPPV was often reported with other vestibular disorders. Healthcare utilization was higher than would be expected with care based on the CPG. The rates of falls in those with and without BPPV are higher than previously reported. Adults with BPPV reported significant differences in how their care is managed and their overall outcomes compared to those without BPPV. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes provide useful information regarding the lived experience of adults with BPPV. Keywords: benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, vestibular disorders, falls, canalith repositioning maneuvers

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Related Outcome MeasuresSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207