Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVES: 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). S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yip, Chun Wai, Glaser, Miriam, Frenzel, Claudia, Bayer, Otmar, Strupp, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27148159
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00058
_version_ 1782427800858263552
author Yip, Chun Wai
Glaser, Miriam
Frenzel, Claudia
Bayer, Otmar
Strupp, Michael
author_facet Yip, Chun Wai
Glaser, Miriam
Frenzel, Claudia
Bayer, Otmar
Strupp, Michael
author_sort Yip, Chun Wai
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4837142
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48371422016-05-04 Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients Yip, Chun Wai Glaser, Miriam Frenzel, Claudia Bayer, Otmar Strupp, Michael Front Neurol Neuroscience OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4837142/ /pubmed/27148159 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00058 Text en Copyright © 2016 Yip, Glaser, Frenzel, Bayer and Strupp. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Yip, Chun Wai
Glaser, Miriam
Frenzel, Claudia
Bayer, Otmar
Strupp, Michael
Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients
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
title_full Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients
title_fullStr Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients
title_short Comparison of the Bedside Head-Impulse Test with the Video Head-Impulse Test in a Clinical Practice Setting: A Prospective Study of 500 Outpatients
title_sort comparison of the bedside head-impulse test with the video head-impulse test in a clinical practice setting: a prospective study of 500 outpatients
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4837142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27148159
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2016.00058
work_keys_str_mv AT yipchunwai comparisonofthebedsideheadimpulsetestwiththevideoheadimpulsetestinaclinicalpracticesettingaprospectivestudyof500outpatients
AT glasermiriam comparisonofthebedsideheadimpulsetestwiththevideoheadimpulsetestinaclinicalpracticesettingaprospectivestudyof500outpatients
AT frenzelclaudia comparisonofthebedsideheadimpulsetestwiththevideoheadimpulsetestinaclinicalpracticesettingaprospectivestudyof500outpatients
AT bayerotmar comparisonofthebedsideheadimpulsetestwiththevideoheadimpulsetestinaclinicalpracticesettingaprospectivestudyof500outpatients
AT struppmichael comparisonofthebedsideheadimpulsetestwiththevideoheadimpulsetestinaclinicalpracticesettingaprospectivestudyof500outpatients