↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun Wai Yip, Miriam Glaser, Claudia Frenzel, Otmar Bayer, Michael Strupp

Abstract

The primary aim was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the bedside head-impulse test (bHIT) using the video HIT (vHIT) as the gold standard for quantifying the function of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). Secondary aims were to determine the bHIT inter-rater reliability and sensitivity in detecting unilateral and bilateral vestibulopathy. In this prospective study, 500 consecutive outpatients presenting to a tertiary neuro-otology clinic with vertigo or dizziness of various vestibular etiologies who did not have any of the pre-defined exclusion criteria were recruited. Bedside HITs were done by three experienced neuro-otology clinicians masked to the diagnosis, and the results were compared with the vHIT. The patients were likewise blinded to the bHIT and vHIT findings. Patients with VOR deficits were identified on the vHIT by referencing to the pre-selected "pathological" gain of <0.7. The data were then analyzed using standard statistical methods. For the primary outcome (vHIT "pathological" VOR gain <0.7), the three-rater mean bHIT sensitivity = 66.0%, PPV = 44.3%, specificity = 86.2%, and NPV = 93.9%. Shifting the "pathological" threshold from 0.6 to 0.9 caused the bHIT sensitivity to decrease while the PPV increased. Specificity and NPV tended to remain stable. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.54). For unilateral vestibulopathy, overall bHIT sensitivity = 69.6%, reaching 86.67% for severely reduced unilateral gain. For VOR asymmetry <40% and >40%, the bHIT sensitivity = 51.7 and 83%, respectively. For bilateral vestibulopathy, overall bHIT sensitivity = 66.3%, reaching 86.84% for severely reduced bidirectional gains. For the primary outcome, the bHIT had moderate sensitivity and low PPV. While the study did not elucidate the best choice for vHIT reference, it demonstrated how the bHIT test properties varied with vHIT thresholds: selecting a lower threshold improved the sensitivity but diminished the PPV, while a higher threshold had the opposite effect. The VOR was most likely normal if the bHIT was negative due to its high NPV. The bHIT was moderately sensitive for detecting unilateral and bilateral vestibulopathy overall, but better for certain subgroups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 100 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Other 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Neuroscience 12 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 July 2016.
All research outputs
#16,363,965
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,813
of 13,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,733
of 305,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#31
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.