Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. shakthy_18@yahoo.com
  • 2 Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. m.a.islam@bham.ac.uk
  • 3 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu, Malaysia
PMID: 36715738 DOI: 10.1007/s00405-023-07842-z

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vestibular dysfunction has been extensively studied amongst the older population. Recently, conditions and management of vestibular dysfunction among children and adolescent has gained attention. Yet, a lack of awareness and expertise in managing children and adolescents with vestibular dysfunction has led to a delay in diagnosis as well as a trifling prevalence rate.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate the overall pooled prevalence of vestibular dysfunction in children and adolescents.

METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies published until 29 April 2022. We used a random-effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test. The robustness of the pooled estimates was checked by different subgroups and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS: We identified 1811 studies, of which 39 studies (n = 323,663) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence of children and adolescents with VD was 30.4% [95% CI 28.5-32.3%]. The age of the participants ranged from 1 to 19 years. Participants of the included 39 studies were from 15 countries. Among the studies, 34 were cross-sectional, and five were case-control designed. There were discrepancies found in the studies with objective (higher prevalence) versus subjective (lower prevalence) evaluations.

CONCLUSION: The prevalence of VD among children and adolescents was found to be 30.4% based on high-quality evidence. Due to the subjective assessment of most studies pooled in the analysis, the results should be interpreted cautiously until future comparative studies with objective assessments are carried out.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.