↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity of caloric test and video head impulse as screening test for chronic vestibular complaints

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensitivity of caloric test and video head impulse as screening test for chronic vestibular complaints
Published in
Clinics, August 2017
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2017(08)03
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Mezzalira, Roseli Saraiva Moreira Bittar, Marcia Maria do Carmo Bilécki-Stipsky, Cibele Brugnera, Signe Schuster Grasel

Abstract

This study compared the results of the caloric test with those of the video head impulse test obtained during the same session and evaluated whether the former can be used to screen for non-acute vestibular dysfunction. A total of 157 participants complaining of dizziness with vestibular characteristics of varying durations and clinical courses completed the caloric test and video head impulse test. Significantly more caloric test results than video head impulse test results were abnormal. The results of the caloric test and video head impulse test are distinct but complement each other. Within our sample, the caloric test was more sensitive for vestibular dysfunction. Therefore, the video head impulse test is not a suitable screening tool of the vestibular system in patients with chronic complaints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Other 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 22%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,241,141
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#226
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,135
of 327,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them