European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
Comparison of test results from two separate video head impulse test systems in a cohort of patients diagnosed with a unilateral vestibular schwannoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Aalling Mathilde, Skals Regitze Kuhr, Abrahamsen Emil Riis, Hougaard Dan Dupont
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Video head impulse testing (vHIT) is a relatively new technology enabling evaluation of vestibular function. The aim of this study was to compare the test results from two separate vHIT systems in a group of patients diagnosed with a unilateral vestibular schwannoma (VS) with regards to sensitivity, specificity and inter-examiner differences.
METHODS: Forty-two patients were examined with two separate vHIT systems: EyeSeeCam® (system A) and ICS Impulse® (system B), by one of two examiners. All six semicircular canals (SCCs) were tested under standardized conditions, and strict criteria were set up for post-test interpretation.
RESULTS: With the majority of test parameters, the two test systems were in agreement. Vestibular deficits were found in 40.5% (system A) to 45% (system B) of patients with a VS on the tested side; corresponding to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.4% (system B) to 94.4% (system A). The specificity was 97.6% for system A and 92.9% for system B. An overall agreement between the two vHIT systems measured as kappa was computed to be 0.61. There were no significant inter-examiner differences. When testing the vertical SCCs, a tendency of too high mean gain values was seen with system A but not with system B.
CONCLUSION: In patients with unilateral VS, vHIT is a test with moderate sensitivity and high specificity in regard to identification of a vestibular deficit. There were no significant differences in test results between the two vHIT systems.
METHODS: Forty-two patients were examined with two separate vHIT systems: EyeSeeCam® (system A) and ICS Impulse® (system B), by one of two examiners. All six semicircular canals (SCCs) were tested under standardized conditions, and strict criteria were set up for post-test interpretation.
RESULTS: With the majority of test parameters, the two test systems were in agreement. Vestibular deficits were found in 40.5% (system A) to 45% (system B) of patients with a VS on the tested side; corresponding to a positive predictive value (PPV) of 86.4% (system B) to 94.4% (system A). The specificity was 97.6% for system A and 92.9% for system B. An overall agreement between the two vHIT systems measured as kappa was computed to be 0.61. There were no significant inter-examiner differences. When testing the vertical SCCs, a tendency of too high mean gain values was seen with system A but not with system B.
CONCLUSION: In patients with unilateral VS, vHIT is a test with moderate sensitivity and high specificity in regard to identification of a vestibular deficit. There were no significant differences in test results between the two vHIT systems.