Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2016 August;52(4) > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2016 August;52(4):541-56





A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,827




European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2016 August;52(4):541-56


language: English

Is vestibular rehabilitation effective in improving dizziness and function after unilateral peripheral vestibular hypofunction? An abridged version of a Cochrane Review

Susan HILLIER 1, Michelle MCDONNELL 2

1 International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia (City East), Adelaide, Australia; 2 School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia


INTRODUCTION: Unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction (UPVD) is characterized by complaints of dizziness, gaze disturbances and balance impairment. Current management includes medication, physical man oeuvres and exercise regimes, the latter known collectively as vestibular rehabilitation. The aim was to assess the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation in people with symptomatic UVPD.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted for the population of adults diagnosed with symptomatic UPVD, living in the community. We searched all relevant databases and trials registers to identify randomized controlled trials comparing vestibular rehabilitation versus control (e.g. placebo), other treatment (non-vestibular rehabilitation, e.g. pharmacological) or another form of vestibular rehabilitation. We considered possible effectiveness in the domains of symptoms (dizziness) or function (activities, quality of life) and where possible combined results in meta-analyses to provide overall estimates of effect.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 39 studies involving 2441 participants with UPVD in the review. Individual and pooled analyses of the primary outcome (frequency of dizziness) showed a statistically significant effect in favor of vestibular rehabilitation over control or no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 3.86). Secondary outcomes measures related to levels of activity or participation showed a strong trend towards significant differences between the groups (standardized mean difference -0.83, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.64). However when movement-based vestibular rehabilitation was compared to physical maneuvers for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), where the latter was shown to be superior in cure rate in the short term (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49). There were no reported adverse effects and risk of bias was generally low across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate to strong evidence that vestibular rehabilitation is a safe, effective management for UPVD. For the specific diagnostic group of BPPV, physical (repositioning) maneuvers are more effective in the short term than exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation; although a combination of the two is effective for longer-term functional recovery. There is insufficient evidence to discriminate between differing forms of vestibular rehabilitation.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail