SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Assessment of Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Brain Sci · 2022-07-21

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12070956PMID: 35884762

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

(1) Background: The brainstem plays an essential role in the early stage of Parkinson's disease (PD), but it is not widely tested in clinical examinations of PD. Vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (VEMPs) are recognized as fundamental tools in the assessment of brainstem function. The aim of our meta-analysis was to assess the abnormal findings of VEMPs in patients with PD. (2) Methods: Up to 14 February 2022, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to evaluate VEMPs in patients with PD in comparison with respective controls. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022311103). (3) Results: A total of 15 studies were finally included in our meta-analysis. The absence rates of VEMPs in patients with PD were significantly higher than those of control groups (cVEMP: OR = 6.77; oVEMP: OR = 13.9; mVEMP: OR = 7.52). A delayed P13 latency, a decreased peak-to-peak amplitude, and an increased AAR of cVEMP, and a delayed oVEMP P15 latency were also found in patients with PD. (4) Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicates abnormal VEMP findings in patients with PD, revealing the dysfunction of the brainstem in PD. VEMP tests, especially cVEMP tests, could be a helpful method for the early detection of PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.