Evi Verbecque1,2, Tessa Marijnissen1, Niels De Belder1, Vincent Van Rompaey3, An Boudewyns3, Paul Van de Heyning2,3,4, Luc Vereeck1,2, Ann Hallemans1,2,5. 1. a Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science , University of Antwerp , Antwerp , Belgium. 2. b Multidisciplinary Motor Centre Antwerp , University of Antwerp , Wilrijk , Belgium. 3. c Department of Otorhinolargynology and Neck & Head Surgery , Antwerp University Hospital , Antwerp , Belgium. 4. d Department of Translational Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science , University of Antwerp , Antwerp , Belgium , and. 5. e Department of Functional Morphology, Faculty of Sciences , University of Antwerp , Antwerp , Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to provide an overview of the prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in children with SNHL classified according to the applied test and its corresponding sensitivity and specificity. DESIGN: Data were gathered using a systematic search query including reference screening. STUDY SAMPLE: Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase were searched. Strategy and reporting of this review was based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: All studies, regardless the applied vestibular test, showed that vestibular function differs significantly between children with hearing loss and normal hearing (p < 0.05). Compared with caloric testing, the sensitivity of the Rotational Chair Test (RCT) varies between 61 and 80% and specificity between 21 and 80%, whereas this was, respectively, 71-100% and 30-100% for collic Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials (cVEMP). Compared with RCT, the sensitivity was 88-100% and the specificity was 69-100% for the Dynamic Visual Acuity test, respectively, 67-100% and 71-100% for the (video) Head Impulse Test and 83% and 86% for the ocular VEMP. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, due to methodological shortcoming, evidence on sensitivity and specificity of vestibular tests is unknown to moderate. Future research should focus on adequate sample sizes (subgroups >30).
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to provide an overview of the prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in children with SNHL classified according to the applied test and its corresponding sensitivity and specificity. DESIGN: Data were gathered using a systematic search query including reference screening. STUDY SAMPLE: Pubmed, Web of Science and Embase were searched. Strategy and reporting of this review was based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Methodological quality was assessed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: All studies, regardless the applied vestibular test, showed that vestibular function differs significantly between children with hearing loss and normal hearing (p < 0.05). Compared with caloric testing, the sensitivity of the Rotational Chair Test (RCT) varies between 61 and 80% and specificity between 21 and 80%, whereas this was, respectively, 71-100% and 30-100% for collic Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials (cVEMP). Compared with RCT, the sensitivity was 88-100% and the specificity was 69-100% for the Dynamic Visual Acuity test, respectively, 67-100% and 71-100% for the (video) Head Impulse Test and 83% and 86% for the ocular VEMP. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, due to methodological shortcoming, evidence on sensitivity and specificity of vestibular tests is unknown to moderate. Future research should focus on adequate sample sizes (subgroups >30).
Entities:
Keywords:
Children; cochlear implant; prevalence; sensitivity and specificity; sensorineural hearing loss; vestibular function test; vestibular loss
Authors: Anisha Singh; Hannah Heet; Dana S Guggenheim; Margaret Lim; Bhavika Garg; Matthew Bao; Sherri L Smith; Doug Garrison; Eileen M Raynor; Janet W Lee; Jordan Wrigley; Kristal M Riska Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2022 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Kumari Apeksha; Sanjana Singh; Monica Rathnamala; S Varalakshmi; D J Preethu; V Kavya; D S Sowndarya; S Arpitha; K Milana; S Navya; M Analey Thejasvi Journal: Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2020-01-29
Authors: Sarie Martens; Ingeborg Dhooge; Cleo Dhondt; Saartje Vanaudenaerde; Marieke Sucaet; Lotte Rombaut; An Boudewyns; Christian Desloovere; Sebastien Janssens de Varebeke; Anne-Sophie Vinck; Robby Vanspauwen; Dominique Verschueren; Ina Foulon; Charlotte Staelens; Karen Van den Broeck; Claudia De Valck; Naima Deggouj; Nele Lemkens; Lisa Haverbeke; Mieke De Bock; Okan Öz; Frank Declau; Benoit Devroede; Christoph Verhoye; Leen Maes Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Jonas De Belder; Stijn Matthysen; Annes J Claes; Griet Mertens; Paul Van de Heyning; Vincent Van Rompaey Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 4.677