Rossi‐Izquierdo 2011.
| Methods | Design: randomised controlled trial with balanced, block randomisation | |
| Participants |
Number: 24 Age: intervention group: mean age 54.5, range 30 to 82, comparator group: mean age 48.8 years, range 28 to 75 Gender: intervention group: 5 males, comparator group: 3 males Setting: Department of Otolaryngology, university hospital Eligibility criteria: participants with instability due to chronic unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders, which had not spontaneously resolved after a month. Hypofunction was defined with caloric tests, at least 25% labyrinthic preponderance according to defined criteria Exclusion criteria: inner ear and pontocerebellar lesions, post‐traumatic conditions, locomotor disturbance preventing standing, previous instrumental VR or the lack of a complete evaluation Baseline characteristics: mixed aetiology reported but no differences in age, gender or duration of symptoms |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention group: computerised dynamic posturography (CDP), 5 sessions of approximately 15 to 20 minutes on consecutive days (n = 12) Comparator group: optokinetic stimulation (OKN), 5 sessions lasting 5 to 15 minutes on consecutive days (n = 12) VR versus VR |
|
| Outcomes |
Primary outcome: DHI Secondary outcome: posturography |
|
| Notes | No participants were lost to follow‐up | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "We used block randomisation" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | An independent researcher assigned participants to groups |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "The person in charge of the VR was neither of the two who assigned patients to groups and evaluated the treatment" |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | It is not clear from the results or the figures whether the data from all participants are included |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Data not reported adequately to enable meta‐analysis |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |