Epley manoeuvre's efficacy for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary-care and subspecialty settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo
Meta-analysis
Patient positioning
Primary care
Systematic review
Journal
BMC primary care
ISSN: 2731-4553
Titre abrégé: BMC Prim Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918300889006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Dec 2023
02 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
07
08
2023
accepted:
21
11
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
3
12
2023
entrez:
2
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point estimates or certainty of evidence. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis and clarified the efficacy of EM for BPPV, regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials of EM for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV in primary-care and subspecialty settings. A primary-care setting was defined as a practice setting by general practitioners, primary-care doctors, or family doctors. A systematic search was conducted in January 2022 across databases, including Cochrane Central Resister of Controlled Trial, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes were the disappearance of subjective symptoms (vertigo), negative findings (Dix-Hallpike test), and all adverse events. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials were identified. In primary-care settings, EM reduced the subjective symptoms [risk ratio (RR), 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-5.02]; however, there was no applicable article for all adverse events. In the subspeciality setting, EM reduced the subjective symptoms (RR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.64-3.56), resulting in an increase in negative findings (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.40-2.34). The evidence exhibited uncertainty about the effect of EM on negative findings in primary-care settings and all adverse events in subspecialty settings. Regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings, EM for BPPV was effective. This study has shown the significance of performing EM for BPPV in primary-care settings. EM for BPPV in a primary-care setting may aid in preventing referrals to higher tertiary care facilities and hospitalisation for follow-up. The study was registered in protocols.io (PROTOCOL INTEGER ID: 51,464) on July 11, 2021.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point estimates or certainty of evidence. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis and clarified the efficacy of EM for BPPV, regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings.
METHODS
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials of EM for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV in primary-care and subspecialty settings. A primary-care setting was defined as a practice setting by general practitioners, primary-care doctors, or family doctors. A systematic search was conducted in January 2022 across databases, including Cochrane Central Resister of Controlled Trial, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes were the disappearance of subjective symptoms (vertigo), negative findings (Dix-Hallpike test), and all adverse events. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials were identified. In primary-care settings, EM reduced the subjective symptoms [risk ratio (RR), 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-5.02]; however, there was no applicable article for all adverse events. In the subspeciality setting, EM reduced the subjective symptoms (RR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.64-3.56), resulting in an increase in negative findings (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.40-2.34). The evidence exhibited uncertainty about the effect of EM on negative findings in primary-care settings and all adverse events in subspecialty settings.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings, EM for BPPV was effective. This study has shown the significance of performing EM for BPPV in primary-care settings. EM for BPPV in a primary-care setting may aid in preventing referrals to higher tertiary care facilities and hospitalisation for follow-up.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The study was registered in protocols.io (PROTOCOL INTEGER ID: 51,464) on July 11, 2021.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38042776
doi: 10.1186/s12875-023-02217-z
pii: 10.1186/s12875-023-02217-z
pmc: PMC10693044
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
262Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Br J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;69(678):e52-e60
pubmed: 30510098
Aten Primaria. 2021 Oct;53(8):102023
pubmed: 34000460
Ear Nose Throat J. 2000 Sep;79(9):732-4, 736-7
pubmed: 11011494
Acad Emerg Med. 2023 May;30(5):442-486
pubmed: 37166022
Neurology. 2008 May 27;70(22):2067-74
pubmed: 18505980
Clin Otolaryngol. 2014 Feb;39(1):39-44
pubmed: 24438128
Can Fam Physician. 2007 Jun;53(6):1049-53, 1048
pubmed: 17872784
J Otolaryngol. 2001 Oct;30(5):295-9
pubmed: 11771023
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003 May;128(5):719-25
pubmed: 12748567
Neurology. 2005 Mar 8;64(5):920-1
pubmed: 15753441
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;77(8):980-2
pubmed: 16549410
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 08;(12):CD003162
pubmed: 25485940
Acad Emerg Med. 2023 Apr 26;:
pubmed: 37186435
NeuroRehabilitation. 2012;31(4):435-41
pubmed: 23232168
J Emerg Med. 2014 Apr;46(4):575-81
pubmed: 24462034
Int J Otolaryngol. 2011;2011:835671
pubmed: 21808648
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994 Apr;110(4):391-6
pubmed: 7848400
Galen Med J. 2019 Jan 01;8:e866
pubmed: 34466453
Otol Neurotol. 2005 Sep;26(5):1034-40
pubmed: 16151355
Neurol Clin Pract. 2023 Oct;13(5):e200191
pubmed: 37664131
Clin Interv Aging. 2018 Nov 05;13:2251-2266
pubmed: 30464434
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jan;59(1):7-10
pubmed: 16360555
Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1999 Feb;24(1):43-6
pubmed: 10196647
BMC Prim Care. 2023 Dec 2;24(1):262
pubmed: 38042776
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Dec;113(6):712-20
pubmed: 7501382
Laryngoscope. 2003 May;113(5):828-32
pubmed: 12792318
Evid Based Med. 2008 Apr;13(2):34-5
pubmed: 18375689
Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19(5):336-41
pubmed: 25377361
Mayo Clin Proc. 2000 Jul;75(7):695-700
pubmed: 10907384
Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Sep;60(578):698-9
pubmed: 20849709
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Mar;156(3_suppl):S1-S47
pubmed: 28248609
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992 Sep;107(3):399-404
pubmed: 1408225
Int Tinnitus J. 2017 Jun 01;21(1):30-34
pubmed: 28723599
J Neurol. 2014 Aug;261(8):1492-8
pubmed: 24817192
Acad Emerg Med. 2023 May;30(5):541-551
pubmed: 36268806
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022 Sep;74(3):314-321
pubmed: 36213465
Aten Primaria. 2021 Oct;53(8):102077
pubmed: 33965884
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 Nov;71(Suppl 2):1183-1186
pubmed: 31750147
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Sep;11(9):918-24
pubmed: 15347540
Am J Otolaryngol. 2003 Nov-Dec;24(6):355-60
pubmed: 14608565