Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology · 2018
Vestibular Testing: Patient Perceptions, Morbidity, and Opportunity Costs.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kelly Elizabeth A, Stocker Catherine, Kempton Carly M, Dierking Darcia M, Fehlberg Hannah E, Adams Meredith E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient tolerance and nonmonetary cost burdens of vestibular testing. Rigorously acquired data are essential for patient counseling and to determine if proposed additions/modifications to current protocols improve quality, experience, and efficiencies of care.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: Tertiary center.
PATIENTS: 130 adults (67% women, mean age 55 yr), referred to audiology clinic for vestibular testing.
INTERVENTION(S): Surveys administered to patients and audiologists immediately and 1 week following videonystagmography (VNG) with caloric and/or rotary chair (RC) testing.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Symptoms, visual analog scale ratings of dizziness, distress, and nausea during testing; test completion; and opportunity costs (time, missed work).
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (58%) experienced undesirable symptoms during testing, including nausea (50%), vomiting (5%), and headaches (12%). Distress and nausea ratings during testing were low (<3/10), with RC ratings lower than VNG. Nineteen patients (15%) discontinued testing early, rating distress and nausea two to three times higher than those who completed testing (p < 0.05). Greater dizziness was associated with younger age and female sex, not migraine and total eye speed. Women had increased distress. Test times were 71 [23] and 26 [13] minutes for VNG with calorics and RC, respectively. Testing required 48% to miss work (range 2-120 h) and 78% obtained assistance to/from testing. Posttest symptoms included drowsiness/fatigue (44%), nausea (31%), and headache (33%).
CONCLUSIONS: This work provides baseline patient tolerance data for vestibular testing. While eliciting distress ratings comparable to other in-office otolaryngology procedures, there are high frequencies of undesirable symptoms, posttest morbidity, and opportunity costs.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: Tertiary center.
PATIENTS: 130 adults (67% women, mean age 55 yr), referred to audiology clinic for vestibular testing.
INTERVENTION(S): Surveys administered to patients and audiologists immediately and 1 week following videonystagmography (VNG) with caloric and/or rotary chair (RC) testing.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Symptoms, visual analog scale ratings of dizziness, distress, and nausea during testing; test completion; and opportunity costs (time, missed work).
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (58%) experienced undesirable symptoms during testing, including nausea (50%), vomiting (5%), and headaches (12%). Distress and nausea ratings during testing were low (<3/10), with RC ratings lower than VNG. Nineteen patients (15%) discontinued testing early, rating distress and nausea two to three times higher than those who completed testing (p < 0.05). Greater dizziness was associated with younger age and female sex, not migraine and total eye speed. Women had increased distress. Test times were 71 [23] and 26 [13] minutes for VNG with calorics and RC, respectively. Testing required 48% to miss work (range 2-120 h) and 78% obtained assistance to/from testing. Posttest symptoms included drowsiness/fatigue (44%), nausea (31%), and headache (33%).
CONCLUSIONS: This work provides baseline patient tolerance data for vestibular testing. While eliciting distress ratings comparable to other in-office otolaryngology procedures, there are high frequencies of undesirable symptoms, posttest morbidity, and opportunity costs.