Categorizing individuals based on the severity of Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale symptoms.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Amanda J Frank, Carrie W Hoppes, Pamela M Dunlap, Cláudia M Costa, Susan L Whitney
{"title":"Categorizing individuals based on the severity of Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale symptoms.","authors":"Amanda J Frank,&nbsp;Carrie W Hoppes,&nbsp;Pamela M Dunlap,&nbsp;Cláudia M Costa,&nbsp;Susan L Whitney","doi":"10.3233/VES-210131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS) assesses visual vertigo. Instead of the original scoring methods (positive VVAS > 1), we propose categorizing patients as having No (0), Mild (0.1-40), Moderate (40.01-70), or Severe (70.01-100) symptoms.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our primary aim was to validate an alternative interpretation of the VVAS by exploring the relationship between categories of visual vertigo symptoms and measures of activity and participation, dizziness handicap, anxiety, and depression. We aimed to describe the severity of visual vertigo reported by patients in different vestibular diagnostic categories.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants with vestibular disorders (n = 250) completed the VVAS, Vestibular Activities and Participation (VAP) Measure, Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with central disorders were more symptomatic than those with peripheral vestibular disorders. As evaluated by one-way ANOVA, the scores on the VAP, HADS, and DHI significantly differed among mild, moderate, severe, and no visual vertigo categories (p < 0.001). As VVAS severity increased, activity and participation decreased (r = 0.582, p < 0.001); dizziness handicap increased (r = 0.597, p < 0.001, n = 199); anxiety increased (r = 0.405, p < 0.001); and depression increased (r = 0.521, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of this study support the use of an alternative VVAS interpretation method of categorizing symptoms as none, mild, moderate, and severe visual vertigo.</p>","PeriodicalId":49960,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vestibular Research-Equilibrium & Orientation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-210131","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS) assesses visual vertigo. Instead of the original scoring methods (positive VVAS > 1), we propose categorizing patients as having No (0), Mild (0.1-40), Moderate (40.01-70), or Severe (70.01-100) symptoms.

Objective: Our primary aim was to validate an alternative interpretation of the VVAS by exploring the relationship between categories of visual vertigo symptoms and measures of activity and participation, dizziness handicap, anxiety, and depression. We aimed to describe the severity of visual vertigo reported by patients in different vestibular diagnostic categories.

Methods: Participants with vestibular disorders (n = 250) completed the VVAS, Vestibular Activities and Participation (VAP) Measure, Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

Results: Patients with central disorders were more symptomatic than those with peripheral vestibular disorders. As evaluated by one-way ANOVA, the scores on the VAP, HADS, and DHI significantly differed among mild, moderate, severe, and no visual vertigo categories (p < 0.001). As VVAS severity increased, activity and participation decreased (r = 0.582, p < 0.001); dizziness handicap increased (r = 0.597, p < 0.001, n = 199); anxiety increased (r = 0.405, p < 0.001); and depression increased (r = 0.521, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: The findings of this study support the use of an alternative VVAS interpretation method of categorizing symptoms as none, mild, moderate, and severe visual vertigo.

根据视觉眩晕模拟量表症状的严重程度对个体进行分类。
背景:视觉眩晕模拟量表(VVAS)用于评估视觉眩晕。与原来的评分方法(阳性VVAS > 1)不同,我们建议将患者分为无(0)、轻度(0.1-40)、中度(40.01-70)或重度(70.01-100)症状。目的:我们的主要目的是通过探索视觉眩晕症状类别与活动和参与程度、头晕障碍、焦虑和抑郁之间的关系来验证VVAS的另一种解释。我们的目的是描述不同前庭诊断类别的患者报告的视觉眩晕的严重程度。方法:有前庭功能障碍的受试者(n = 250)完成VVAS、前庭活动与参与(VAP)测量、头晕障碍量表(DHI)和医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)。结果:中枢性疾病患者比周围性前庭疾病患者更有症状。通过单因素方差分析评估,VAP、HADS和DHI评分在轻度、中度、重度和无视觉眩晕类别之间存在显著差异(p)。结论:本研究的发现支持使用另一种VVAS解释方法将症状分为无、轻度、中度和重度视觉眩晕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
66
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Vestibular Research is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes experimental and observational studies, review papers, and theoretical papers based on current knowledge of the vestibular system. Subjects of the studies can include experimental animals, normal humans, and humans with vestibular or other related disorders. Study topics can include the following: Anatomy of the vestibular system, including vestibulo-ocular, vestibulo-spinal, and vestibulo-autonomic pathways Balance disorders Neurochemistry and neuropharmacology of balance, both at the systems and single neuron level Neurophysiology of balance, including the vestibular, ocular motor, autonomic, and postural control systems Psychophysics of spatial orientation Space and motion sickness Vestibular rehabilitation Vestibular-related human performance in various environments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信