Bestimmung der subjektiven visuellen Vertikale mit einem portablen System

Abstract

The portable method for measuring SVV is practical, flexible and cost-effective and demonstrates the same diagnostic accuracy as the stationary method.

Misperception of Visual Vertical in Peripheral Vestibular Disorders. A Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis

“…Figure 1 shows the number of records removed and the reasons for their exclusion. Finally, 34 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis 32–65 …”

“…Females represented 54% of the total sample. The measures used to assess the perception of VV were the SVV test in 34 studies 32–65 with 52 independent comparisons and the RFT in four studies 32,57–59 with 5 independent comparisons. The findings were grouped into two meta‐analyses according to the VV assessment tool used.…”

“…The findings were grouped into two meta‐analyses according to the VV assessment tool used. In the meta‐analysis where the SVV test was used as the measurement tool for VV perception, 14 studies 33,36,38–41,46,48,49,51,52,57,62,64 reported patients with an inner ear vestibular and/or labyrinth disorders such as the benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, the Menière Disease, and the peripheral unilateral or bilateral peripheral vestibular hypofunction; 12 studies 32,43–45,47,49,50,55,58,61,63,65 reported patients with a vestibulo‐cochlear nerve damage, such as vestibular schwannoma, vestibular neuritis or neurectomy; and finally, 11 studies 34,35,37,42,51–54,56,59,60 with groups of patients with mixed PVD with subject diagnosed of inner ear, labyrinth, or vestibule‐cochlear nerve damage integrating the same group exposed. When perception of verticality was assessed using the RFT, two studies 32,58 reported patients with vestibular nerve disorders; one study 57 of patients with inner ear vestibular disorders; and one study 59 of a group of patients with combined vestibular disorders.…”

“…The methodological quality of the studies included in this meta‐analysis, as assessed by the NOS (Table II) was moderate (mean quality: 4.24). Eight studies 46,48,53,54,56,61–63 were of low quality (1–3 stars); 25 studies 32–40,42–45,47,49–52,55,57–59,64,65 of moderate quality (4–6 stars); and one study 41 was considered to be of high quality (7–9 stars). A possible risk of selection and confounding bias is present in the included studies due the low information provided about the characteristics of the exposed and non‐exposed groups (S1, S2, S3, and S4 items) and their comparability (C1).…”

“…Thirty‐four studies 32–65 with 55 independent comparisons reported data from 3,324 PVD patients (41.89 ± 12.01 years old) in which the perception of verticality was evaluated using the SVV test. The pooled effect (SMD = 1.510; 95% CI: 1.190–1.830; P < .001) shows that patients with PVD have a high misperception of VV, when measured with the SVV test (Fig.…”