The Role of Vestibular Physical Therapy in Managing Persistent Postural-Perceptual Dizziness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Persistent Postural-Perceptual Dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic vestibular disorder characterized by dizziness, instability, and visual hypersensitivity. Vestibular Physical Therapy (VPT) is commonly used, but its efficacy remains uncertain due to limited and heterogeneous evidence. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of VPT in reducing dizziness and improving balance in individuals with PPPD. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE and PEDro was conducted in January 2025. Studies were selected following PRISMA guidelines and included if they assessed VPT interventions in patients diagnosed with PPPD. Risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scale and the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis focused on pre- and post-intervention changes in Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) scores using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. VPT significantly reduced DHI scores (pooled Hedges’ g = 1.60; 95% CI: 0.75–2.45), indicating a moderate to large improvement. Additional outcomes included improvements in postural control (e.g., mini-BESTest and posturography) and psychological well-being (anxiety and depression questionnaires). However, high heterogeneity (I2 = 92%) was present across studies. Conclusions: VPT may improve dizziness and balance in PPPD, though evidence is limited. Further high-quality trials with standardized protocols 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".