Evidence Hub

Optokinetic stimulation for the treatment of vestibular and balance disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Obrero-Gaitán E, Sedeño-Vidal A, Peinado-Rubia AB, Cortés-Pérez I, Ibáñez-Vera AJ, Lomas-Vega R

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024

468 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse the effectiveness of optokinetic stimulation (OKS) for improving symptoms and function in patients with vestibular and balance disorders.

Methods: PubMed (MEDLINE), SCOPUS, Web of Science (WOS), CINAHL Complete, and PEDro databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with vestibular and balance disorders and compared the effects of OKS versus other interventions or no intervention on subjective or objective functional outcomes. Data were analysed by the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence interval.

Results: A total of 10 studies were selected including 468 patients, 177 of whom received OKS. There were no significant differences in scores on the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (SMD = 0.02; 95% CI - 0.18 to 0.23; p = 0.83) or the visual analogue scale (VAS) for vertigo (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI - 1.25 to 1.58; p = 0.82). However, there were statistically significant differences in the timed up and go (TUG) test, with a large effect (SMD = - 1.13; 95% CI -2 to - 0.28; p = 0.009), and in the sensory organization test (SOT), with a medium effect (SMD = - 0.7; 95% CI - 1.21 to - 0.19; p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis showed significant effects of OKS on VAS (p = 0.017), TUG (p = 0.009) and SOT (p = 0.001) only in patients with balance disorders without vestibular disease (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: OKS may improve dizziness intensity measured with VAS or dynamic balance measured whit TUG and SOT…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 468 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free