Smartphone-Assisted Medical Care for Vestibular Dysfunction as a Telehealth Strategy for Digital Therapy Beyond COVID-19: Scoping Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Dizziness and vertigo can be caused by various factors, such as peripheral vestibular and central disorders. Although consultations with specialists are advisable when necessary, patients with severe vertigo symptoms may have limited mobility, which may interfere with hospital visits. The spread of COVID-19 has further limited the number of hospital visits for patients with dizziness; therefore, a method of medical care that enables more accurate treatment under time and geographical constraints is needed. Telemedicine has become widespread, owing to the popularity of smartphone and tablet devices in recent years, and the use of devices and systems has made it possible to provide efficient medical care. However, no previous scoping review has mapped existing studies on telemedicine for vertigo and dizziness, and no recommendations have been made regarding which devices and systems should be used for specific diseases.

Objective

The aim of this review was to map and assess previous studies on the use of information communications technology, smartphones, and apps for treating patients with vertigo and discuss the added value of introducing telemedicine to improve the quality of medical care and create an environment that builds security and trust among patients.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted with the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley and in accordance with the of the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to retrieve previous reports on smartphone-assisted telemedicine treatment for vertigo published between January 2000 and May 2023. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data.

Results

This review included 20 papers that reported devices or systems for telemedicine for vestibular dysfunction. Among studies that reported the use of a device or app, 2 were related to anamnesis and subjective symptoms, 12 were related to objective examination, 7 were related to remote diagnosis, and 7 were related to treatment and rehabilitation.

Conclusions

With the advancement of technology, the use of telemedicine in patients with dizziness may be feasible. In the future, it will be necessary to consider how telemedicine can be used in dizziness treatment and develop an effective treatment system combining in-person medical care and the effective use of devices for the management of severe vertigo and related diseases. The smooth introduction of telemedicine in vertigo treatment is expected to improve the quality of treatment, increase opportunities for patients to receive medical care, and reduce time and travel costs, leading to a sense of security and trust among patients.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 10710 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

Lisa O'Malley, Hilary Arksey (2005)

0 comments Cited 8204 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

HINTS outperforms ABCD2 to screen for stroke in acute continuous vertigo and dizziness.

David E Newman-Toker, Kevin A Kerber, Yu-Hsiang Hsieh … (2013)

Dizziness and vertigo account for about 4 million emergency department (ED) visits annually in the United States, and some 160,000 to 240,000 (4% to 6%) have cerebrovascular causes. Stroke diagnosis in ED patients with vertigo/dizziness is challenging because the majority have no obvious focal neurologic signs at initial presentation. The authors sought to compare the accuracy of two previously published approaches purported to be useful in bedside screening for possible stroke in dizziness: a clinical decision rule (head impulse, nystagmus type, test of skew [HINTS]) and a risk stratification rule (age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, diabetes [ABCD2]). This was a cross-sectional study of high-risk patients (more than one stroke risk factor) with acute vestibular syndrome (AVS; acute, persistent vertigo or dizziness with nystagmus, plus nausea or vomiting, head motion intolerance, and new gait unsteadiness) at a single academic center. All underwent neurootologic examination, neuroimaging (97.4% by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and follow-up. ABCD2 risk scores (0-7 points), using the recommended cutoff of ≥4 for stroke, were compared to a three-component eye movement battery (HINTS). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-) were assessed for stroke and other central causes, and the results were stratified by age. False-negative initial neuroimaging was also assessed. A total of 190 adult AVS patients were assessed (1999-2012). Median age was 60.5 years (range = 18 to 92 years; interquartile range [IQR] = 52.0 to 70.0 years); 60.5% were men. Final diagnoses were vestibular neuritis (34.7%), posterior fossa stroke (59.5% [105 infarctions, eight hemorrhages]), and other central causes (5.8%). Median ABCD2 was 4.0 (range = 2 to 7; IQR = 3.0 to 4.0). ABCD2 ≥ 4 for stroke had sensitivity of 61.1%, specificity of 62.3%, LR+ of 1.62, and LR- of 0.62; sensitivity was lower for those younger than 60 years old (28.9%). HINTS stroke sensitivity was 96.5%, specificity was 84.4%, LR+ was 6.19, and LR- was 0.04 and did not vary by age. For any central lesion, sensitivity was 96.8%, specificity was 98.5%, LR+ was 63.9, and LR- was 0.03 for HINTS, and sensitivity was 99.2%, specificity was 97.0%, LR+ was 32.7, and LR- was 0.01 for HINTS "plus" (any new hearing loss added to HINTS). Initial MRIs were falsely negative in 15 of 105 (14.3%) infarctions; all but one was obtained before 48 hours after onset, and all were confirmed by delayed MRI. HINTS substantially outperforms ABCD2 for stroke diagnosis in ED patients with AVS. It also outperforms MRI obtained within the first 2 days after symptom onset. While HINTS testing has traditionally been performed by specialists, methods for empowering emergency physicians (EPs) to leverage this approach for stroke screening in dizziness should be investigated. © 2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

0 comments Cited 103 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Hiroaki Fushiki:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4120-8641

Mejiro University Ear Institute Clinic320 Ukiya, Iwatsukiku, Saitama-shiSaitama, 339-8501Japan81 48 797 3341fushiki@mejiro.ac.jp

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

Journal ID (publisher-id): JMU

Title: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 2291-5222

Publication date Collection: 2023

Publication date (Electronic): 11 September 2023

Publication date PMC-release: 11 September 2023

Volume: 11

Electronic Location Identifier: e48638

Affiliations

[1 ] Department of Otolaryngology Jichi Medical University Shimotsuke Japan

[2 ] Mejiro University Ear Institute Clinic Saitama Japan

[3 ] Kuroda Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic Kumamoto Japan

[4 ] College of Transdisciplinary Sciences for Innovation Kanazawa University Kanazawa Japan

[5 ] Department of Otolaryngology Kanazawa University Kanazawa Japan

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Hiroaki Fushiki fushiki@ 123456mejiro.ac.jp

Author information

Masao Noda https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6281-2782

Tatsuaki Kuroda https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3927-8002

Akihiro Nomura https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6647-8240

Makoto Ito https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6863-4622

Tomokazu Yoshizaki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2420-5540

Hiroaki Fushiki https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4120-8641

Article

Publisher ID: v11i1e48638

DOI: 10.2196/48638

PMC ID: 10496931

PubMed ID: 37695671

SO-VID: 14255097-5249-41b4-b9b2-cac643e3ca80

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 2 May 2023

Date revision requested : 31 May 2023

Date revision received : 13 June 2023

Date accepted : 8 August 2023

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 4

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 590

See all reference authors

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access