2017
DOI: 10.3757/jser.76.212
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic value of video Head Impulse Test

Abstract: The head impulse test (HIT) is a safe and quick way of assessing at the bedside semicircular canal function in patients with peripheral vestibular loss, first described in 1988. This test is practical even in sick patients and needs no equipment. The clinician identifies overt (visible) catch-up saccades back to the target after passive head rotation as a clinical sign of canal paresis. However, it is known that some patients with absence of vestibular function do not make overt saccades, but instead make cove… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, there is a possibility that BPPV could not be completely excluded because we could not check the positional nystagmus testing and supine positional testing using a CCD camera with infrared illumination over Frenzel glasses at the time that PPPD was diagnosed ( 15 , 16 ). In addition, vestibular dysfunction cannot be completely excluded because we could not check the quantifiable video-head impulse test or caloric test by at the time of diagnosis of PPPD ( 17 , 18 ). Third, the telephone interviews used to determine outcomes had a response rate of 78.8%, and it is possible that there was some sampling bias for the treatment outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there is a possibility that BPPV could not be completely excluded because we could not check the positional nystagmus testing and supine positional testing using a CCD camera with infrared illumination over Frenzel glasses at the time that PPPD was diagnosed ( 15 , 16 ). In addition, vestibular dysfunction cannot be completely excluded because we could not check the quantifiable video-head impulse test or caloric test by at the time of diagnosis of PPPD ( 17 , 18 ). Third, the telephone interviews used to determine outcomes had a response rate of 78.8%, and it is possible that there was some sampling bias for the treatment outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%