These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A Comparison of Generalized and Individualized Vestibular Rehabilitation Therapy in a Military TBI Sample.
    Author: Vander Vegt CB, Hill-Pearson CA, Hershaw JN, Loftin MC, Bobula SA, Souvignier AR.
    Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil; ; 37(6):380-389. PubMed ID: 35452022.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes between active duty service members receiving generalized versus individualized vestibular rehabilitation treatment (GVRT and IVRT, respectively) for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). SETTING: An outpatient TBI rehabilitation clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-seven participants with persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI were randomly assigned to the GVRT ( n = 28) or IVRT ( n = 29) group, stratified by dizziness-related impairment severity. Forty-two participants ( n = 21 per group) completed the posttreatment evaluation and were included in analyses. DESIGN: We employed a single-site, randomized, pre-/posttest experimental design. The GVRT program consisted of eight 45-minute group-based treatment sessions and IVRT consisted of three 30-minute one-on-one treatment sessions both to be completed within 8 weeks. Group assignment was not blinded to study personnel or participants. Research evaluations were completed approximately 2 weeks prior to treatment initiation and following treatment completion. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome measures included Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) total scores, Sensory Organization Test (SOT) composite equilibrium and sensory input ratio scores, Head Shake SOT (HS-SOT) conditions 2 and 5, and horizontal and vertical Dynamic Visual Acuity. Separate mixed-effects models were used to compare clinical outcomes between the GVRT and IVRT groups. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from pre- to posttreatment on self-reported dizziness-related impairment (DHI [ F(1,41) = 16.28, P < .001]) and balance performance with and without head movement (composite equilibrium score [ F(1,41) = 16.58, P < .001, effect size [ES] = 0.43], somatosensory [ F(1,41) = 6.79, P = .013, ES = 0.26], visual [ F(1,41) = 6.49, P = .015, ES = 0.29], vestibular [ F(1,41) = 22.31, P < .001, ES = 0.55], and HS-SOT condition 5 [ F(1,38) = 23.98, P < .001, ES = 0.64]). Treatment effects did not differ between groups on any of the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary evidence that differences in clinical outcomes do not exist between participants receiving generalized versus individualized VR. Further research is needed to determine comparative effectiveness between these 2 treatment approaches for persistent vestibular-related symptoms following mTBI.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]