Epley manoeuvre's efficacy for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary-care and subspecialty settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 9, 2025
Using Unidirectional Rotations to Improve Vestibular System Asymmetry in Patients with Vestibular Dysfunction
Published on: August 30, 2019
Yusuke Saishoji1, Norio Yamamoto2,3, Takashi Fujiwara4,5
1Department of General Internal Medicine, National Hospital Organization Nagasaki Medical Center, 2- 1001-1 Kubara, Omura, Nagasaki, 856-8562, Japan. yusukesaishoji@gmail.com.
Background:
Although previous studies have reported general inexperience with the Epley manoeuvre (EM) among general physicians, no report has evaluated the effect of EM on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care by using point estimates or certainty of evidence. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis and clarified the efficacy of EM for BPPV, regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings.
Methods:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised sham-controlled trials of EM for the treatment of posterior canal BPPV in primary-care and subspecialty settings. A primary-care setting was defined as a practice setting by general practitioners, primary-care doctors, or family doctors. A systematic search was conducted in January 2022 across databases, including Cochrane Central Resister of Controlled Trial, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes were the disappearance of subjective symptoms (vertigo), negative findings (Dix-Hallpike test), and all adverse events. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Results:
Twenty-seven randomised controlled trials were identified. In primary-care settings, EM reduced the subjective symptoms [risk ratio (RR), 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.96-5.02]; however, there was no applicable article for all adverse events. In the subspeciality setting, EM reduced the subjective symptoms (RR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.64-3.56), resulting in an increase in negative findings (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.40-2.34). The evidence exhibited uncertainty about the effect of EM on negative findings in primary-care settings and all adverse events in subspecialty settings.
Conclusions:
Regardless of primary-care and subspecialty settings, EM for BPPV was effective. This study has shown the significance of performing EM for BPPV in primary-care settings. EM for BPPV in a primary-care setting may aid in preventing referrals to higher tertiary care facilities and hospitalisation for follow-up.
Trial Registration:
The study was registered in protocols.io (PROTOCOL INTEGER ID: 51,464) on July 11, 2021.
