Enhancing research quality of studies on VEMPs in central neurological disorders: a scoping review

Abstract

Common pitfalls in vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) recording methods have been extensively outlined by several reviews. Conversely, the robustness of research methodology employed for the design and conduct of VEMP studies has never been appraised. To fill this void, we conducted a scoping review to map and evaluate the overall quality of the existing literature on VEMPs in central neurological disorders. Five databases were searched from inception to October 2018 for case-control studies on multiple sclerosis (MS), cerebellar and/or brainstem strokes, Parkinson's disease (PD), migraine, and tumors of the cerebellopontine angle. Study quality was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria (AHRQ). The 11-criteria AHRQ scoring system revealed that PD studies achieved a score of 5/11, migraine and cerebellar and/or brainstem stroke a score of 4/11, MS and tumors of the cerebellopontine angle a score of 3/11. Age was found to be one of the main sources of case-control imbalance: compared with controls, cases were significantly older with a 3.6-yr difference in MS studies, 6 yr in PD, up to 12 yr in stroke and tumors. Regardless of pathological condition, case-control groups were found unmatched also by gender. Post hoc power calculations revealed that 53% of the studies achieved the minimum statistical power of 80%. This scoping review revealed low research quality across the literature on VEMPs in central neurological disorders. Scoping lines are provided on actions to be undertaken in future studies to establish a common methodological platform and enhance the quality of research in this field. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Robust methodology is a prerequisite for any type of research, particularly for observational designs such as those employed in vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) research. On these premises, this scoping review provides methodological guidelines to improve validity, accuracy and consistency of clinical outcomes from VEMP studies involving central nervous system disorders. In fact, the high risk for bias that is inherent to poor methodology threatens the validity of the findings of works that are technically sound but methodologically flawed.