Rapid Systematic Review of Normal Audiometry Results as a Predictor for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo

Dorresteijn, Paul M; Ipenburg, Norbertus A.; Murphy, Kathryn J.; Smit, Michelle; Vulpen, Jonna K. van; Wegner, Inge; Stegeman, Inge; Grolman, Wilko

doi:10.1177/0194599814527233

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…using predefined criteria (see Table 2 for assessment criteria). A similar version of this system was previously used in other diagnostic systematic reviews (8)(9)(10). The criteria were classified as ''satisfactory'' (*), or ''unsatisfactory or unclear'' (*).…”

Section: Study Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Value of CT Imaging in Diagnosing Otosclerosis

Wegner

Waes

Bittermann

et al. 2016

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Value of CT Imaging in Diagnosing Otosclerosis

Wegner

Waes

Bittermann

et al. 2016

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although, not all of these records will fulfil the inclusion criteria, such as for example, being designed as a systematic review, we assigned them as potential review group. For the screening step, the counts of the articles that needed to be screened to reach the final set of studies are depicted in figure 1 22–141. The excluded studies are presented in online supplementary table S1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveEngaging stakeholders in reviews is considered to generate more relevant evidence and to facilitate dissemination and use. As little is known about stakeholder involvement, we assessed the characteristics of their engagement in systematic and rapid reviews and the methodological quality of included studies. Stakeholders were people with a particular interest in the research topic.DesignMethodological review.Search strategyFour databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, databases of the University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)) were searched based on an a priori protocol. Four types of reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, rapid and CRD rapid reviews) were retrieved between January 2011 and October 2015, pooled by potential review type and duplicates excluded. Articles were randomly ordered and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria until 30 reviews per group were reached. Their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and stakeholder characteristics were collected.ResultsIn total, 57 822 deduplicated citations were detected with potential non-Cochrane systematic reviews being the biggest group (56 986 records). We found stakeholder involvement in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane, 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane, 43% (13/30) of rapid and 93% (28/30) of CRD reviews. Overall, 33% (17/51) of the responding contact authors mentioned positive effects of stakeholder involvement. A conflict of interest statement remained unmentioned in 40% (12/30) of non-Cochrane and in 27% (8/30) of rapid reviews, but not in Cochrane or CRD reviews. At most, half of non-Cochrane and rapid reviews mentioned an a priori study protocol in contrast to all Cochrane reviews.ConclusionStakeholder engagement was not general practice, except for CRD reviews, although it was more common in rapid reviews. Reporting factors, such as including an a priori study protocol and a conflict of interest statement should be considered in conjunction with involving stakeholders.

show abstract

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and asymmetric hearing loss: is the worst hearing ear likely to suffer from otoconial displacement?

Salvago

Immordino

Vaccaro

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid Systematic Review of Normal Audiometry Results as a Predictor for Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo

Abstract: There is insufficient high-quality evidence regarding the diagnostic value of the absence of hearing loss, assessed by PTA, for predicting BPPV in adult patients with vertigo.

Cited by 8 publications

References 16 publications

A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Value of CT Imaging in Diagnosing Otosclerosis

A Systematic Review of the Diagnostic Value of CT Imaging in Diagnosing Otosclerosis

Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and asymmetric hearing loss: is the worst hearing ear likely to suffer from otoconial displacement?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About