Normative values of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain obtained through Video Head Impulse Test: an integrative literature review

Oyarzún Díaz, Patricia; Rivera Retamal, Sebastián; Jiménez Cofré, Sergio; Segura Pujol, Hugo

doi:10.1590/1982-0216/20202264320

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

REVIEW ARTICLES • Rev. CEFAC 22 (6) • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20202264320 copy

Normative values of vestibulo-ocular reflex gain obtained through Video Head Impulse Test: an integrative literature review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

to identify and analyze the available evidence on the reference values of the vestibulo-ocular reflex gain obtained with the video head impulse test.

Methods:

an integrative review based on the PRISMA protocol, searching the ProQuest, EBSCO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and SciELO databases with keywords. The studies included were original research articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published since 2009, involving humans, written in English, Spanish and/or Portuguese.

Results:

10,250 studies related to the keywords were found. Of these, 10 articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed following the CADE protocol. On the horizontal plane, the values ranged from 0.80 to 1.06, while on the right anterior/left posterior and on the left anterior/right posterior planes, the values ranged from 0.80 to 1.03. Other relevant data for obtaining the gain were analyzed, such as the number of impulses, the assessor’s experience, the patient-object distance, and the percentage of asymmetry.

Conclusion:

little research on the theme, recently developed and published, mostly in European countries, was found. This shows the need for a greater number of studies to strengthen the scientific evidence.

Keywords:
Reference Values; Vestibular Function Tests; Vestibular Nerve

Author and year	Country	Sample	Equipment used	Planes assessed	Main results
Mossman et al. (2015)²¹	New Zealand	60 subjects aged 20 to 80 years (10 participants per decade). Without brain disorders, vertigo, or restricted neck movement.	EyeSeeCam, Interacoustics	Horizontal	0.97 in 80 ms 0.94 in 60 ms
Matiño-Soler et al. (2015)²²	Spain	212 subjects aged 6 to 95 years. Without a history of auditory, vestibular, visual, or neurological changes.	vHIT, GN Otometrics.	Horizontal	6-10 years: 1.04 +/- 0.06 11-20 years: 1.05 +/- 0.05 21-30 years: 1.05 +/- 0.05 31-40 years: 1.08 +/- 0.07 41-50 years: 1.08 +/- 0.07 51-60 years: 1.07 +/- 1.06 61-70 years: 1.07 +/- 0.08 71-80 years: 1.08 +/- 0.05 81-90 years: 1.09 +/- 0.10 91 years or older: 0.87 +/- 0.08 Total 1.06 +/- 0.07
McGarvie et al. (2015)²³	Australia	91 subjects aged 10 to 89 years, grouped by decades. Without a history of vestibular changes.	vHIT, GN Otometrics.	Horizontal RALP LARP	Horizontal: Values close to 1 for all age ranges. RALP and LARP: Values between 0.8 and 1. They tend to decrease as age increases.
Yang et al. (2016)²⁴	Korea	50 subjects aged 20 to 60 years, divided into five groups, by decade. Without a history of auditory, vestibular, or neurological disorders, or postural or gait anomalies.	ICS Impulse, GN Otometrics.	Horizontal	20 years: 1.01 +/- 0.06 30 years: 1.01 +/- 0.54 40 years: 1.00 +/- 0.77 50 years: 1.03 +/- 0.06 60 years: 1.04 +/- 0.08 Total: 1.02 +/- 0.07
Bansal et al. (2016)²⁵	India	25 young adults aged 17 to 25 years. Without a history of neurological, auditory, vestibular, neuromuscular, or cervical changes, or excessive noise exposure.	vHIT, GN Otometrics.	Horizontal RALP LARP	Horizontal: R: 1.00 +/- 0.12; L: 0.91 +/- 0.09 RA: 0.88 +/-0.10; LP: 0.82 +/-0.07 LA: 0.91 +/-0.14; RP: 0.85 +/-0.09
Wiener et al. (2017)²⁶	Germany	274 children aged 1 to 15 years, divided into 15 age groups, and another group comprising 26 adolescents and adults aged 16 to 67 years. Without a history of neurological, vestibular, ophthalmological, or oculomotor disorders, or any other potentially relevant medical history.	Ulmer, Synapsys.	Horizontal RALP LARP	Horizontal, anterior, and posterior, respectively. 1: 090, 0.95, 0.87 2: 0.88, 0.95, 0.89 3: 0.91, 0.95, 0.93 4: 0.95, 0.98, 0.96 5: 0.95, 0.97, 0.96 6: 0.96, 0.98, 0.94 7: 0.97, 0.98, 0.96 8: 0.98, 1.02, 0.98 9: 0.98, 1.00, 0.98 10: 0.98, 0.99, 0.98 11: 1.01, 1.00, 1.00 12: 0.99, 1.02, 0.99 13: 1.00, 1.02, 1.03 14: 1.01, 1.03, 1.02 15: 1.02, 1.02, 0.99 Adults: 1.02, 1.03, 0.99
Lehnen et al. (2017)²⁷	Germany	44 children aged 4 to 18 years, divided into three groups: early childhood (4-7 years), middle childhood (8-11 years), and adolescence (12-18 years). Without a history of vestibular disorders.	EyeSeeCam, Interacoustics.	Horizontal	4 to 7 years: 0.96 +/- 0.07 8 to 11 years: 0.95 +/- 0.06 12 to 18 years: 0.94 +/- 0.07
Wenzel et al. (2017)²⁸	Germany	6 children aged 5 to 36 months. Without a history of auditory, or vestibular disorders, though initially tracked to clarify any possible auditory disorder.	EyeSeeCam, Interacoustics.	Horizontal	1.06 +/- 0.25 in 40 ms. 0.76 +/- 0.21 in 60 ms. 0.53 +/- 0.21 in 80 ms.
Bachmann et al. (2018)²⁹	United States	30 children aged 4 to 12 years, equally divided into three groups: 4-6 years, 7-9 years, and 10-12 years. 11 adults (control group). Without a history of vestibular disorders.	ICS Impulse, GN Otometrics.	Horizontal RALP LARP	Horizontal: R: 1.04 +/- 0.09; L: 0.96 +/- 0.09 RA 0.90 +/- 0.19; LP 0.91 +/-0.14 LA 0.80 +/- 0.11; RP 0.95 +/- 0.09
Lee et al. (2018)³⁰	Korea	25 subjects aged 31 +/- 6 years. Without a history of auditory, vestibular, or neurological disorders, or postural or gait anomalies.	A: ICS Impulse, GN Otometrics. B: SLVNG vHIT, SLMED Inc.	Horizontal	A: 1.05 +/- 0.07 B: 0.95 +/- 0.05

	Bachmann et al., (2018)	Wiener-Vacher et al., (2017)	Yang et al., (2015)	McGarvie et al., (2015)	Mossman et al., (2015)
1. Was there a plausible rationale for the study?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2. Was the index measure compared to a reference standard?	Yes	No	No	No	No
3. Were measures and procedures described clearly?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
4. Were measures administered independently?	Yes	NR	NR	NR	NR
5. Were measures administered with blinding?	No	No	No	No	No
6. Were methods and participants specified prospectively?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
7. Were participants recognizable and representative of the actual diagnostic task?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
8. Were the reference standard and the index test both administered to all participants?	Yes	No	No	No	No
9. Was LR+ (sensitivity/1-specificity) ≥ 10.0?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
10. Was LR- (1-sensitivity/specificity) ≤ 0.10?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
11. Was precision adequate?	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes
	Matiño-Soler et al., (2015)	Wenzel et al., (2017)	Lee et al., (2018)	Bansal et al., (2016)	Lehnen et al., (2017)
1. Was there a plausible rationale for the study?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2. Was the index measure compared to a reference standard?	No	No	No	No	No
3. Were measures and procedures described clearly?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
4. Were measures administered independently?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
5. Were measures administered with blinding?	No	No	No	No	No
6. Were methods and participants specified prospectively?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
7. Were participants recognizable and representative of the actual diagnostic task?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
8. Were the reference standard and the index test both administered to all participants?	No	No	No	No	No
9. Was LR+ (sensitivity/1-specificity) ≥ 10.0?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
10. Was LR- (1-sensitivity/specificity) ≤ 0.10?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
11. Was precision adequate?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

ABRAMO Associação Brasileira de Motricidade Orofacial Rua Uruguaiana, 516, Cep 13026-001 Campinas SP Brasil, Tel.: +55 19 3254-0342 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistacefac@cefac.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding address: Patricia Alejandra Oyarzún Díaz, Circunvalación Poniente 1855 Talca, Edificio Car 3, 3460000, Talca, Chile, E-mail: patriciaoyarzundi@santotomas.cl