In the initial search, we identified 2,316 records, and the search update revealed 3,299 records through database searching. Additional 603 papers were identified through manual searching and from backwards citation tracing from identified systematic reviews. After deduplication, 3,280 titles and abstracts were screened. Full texts of 428 studies were screened. The screening process is shown in Figure 1.
The sample of the initial literature search comprised 16 studies [30–45], the search update revealed 5 additional studies [46–50], and one study that was updated due to a new follow-up publication [51]. Thus, the final sample comprised 22 studies with 1,876 participants. All studies but two were randomized controlled trials. The latter were non-randomized controlled trials [36, 50].
Setting and participant characteristics
The studies were conducted in 14 countries between 2008 and 2018 and took place in hospitals (7 studies), primary care (medical or physical therapy) practices (3 studies) or outpatient clinics (of a university) (6 studies) residential homes (1 study), at home (2 studies). The setting of three studies was not described. The mean age of the participants in the total population ranged from 60.0 to 85.5 years, since we also included studies in which either the intervention or control had a mean age of ≥ 65 years of age, and symptoms of VDB varied from cardinal symptoms of dizziness (4 studies), balance disorder (3 studies) and general vestibular dysfunction (1 study) to a specific underlying pathology such as Parkinson´s disease (4 studies), benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) (2 studies), stroke (2 studies), fall-related conditions (2 studies), visual impairment (1 study) or cervicogenic dizziness (1 study). A table listing the characteristics of subjects is shown in Additional file 2.
Interventions and comparisons
Interventions included unspecified vestibular rehabilitation (VR) (8 studies), specific programmes (e.g., Cawthorne-Cooksey or Otago) (4 studies) and other special forms of (vestibular) exercise therapy such as computer-assisted training (CAVR) (5 studies), Tai Chi (TCVR) (3 studies), canal repositioning manoeuvres (CRMs) (1 study) and manual therapy (1 study). Interventions were compared to usual care, no/sham interventions or to other interventions (e.g. variations of an established programme). A table listing the intervention and control interventions is shown in Additional file 2.
Risk of bias of included studies
The risk-of-bias assessment revealed varying methodological quality/ internal validity. Details are shown in Figure 2. Detailed descriptions of assessment are given in supplementary data (s. Additional file 3). The risk of bias across studies is shown in Figure 3.
Outcome measures
Reported outcome measures among the 22 included studies, varied largely. 16 studies investigated static or dynamic balance or postural control. Aspects of mobility, e.g., walking ability, functional mobility or activity level, were assessed in 9 studies. Dizziness symptoms, such as frequency, intensity or its impact, were addressed in 8 studies. 6 studies carried out an assessment of (risk of) falls, and 5 studies addressed quality of life. 4 studies reported lower extremity muscle strength, 2 analysed proprioception, and some single studies evaluated various self-perceived outcomes. Primary outcome(s) were stated in the half of all included studies (11 studies). When attributed to ICF components, 4 studies assessed body functions and structures, 5 activities and participation and 2 both components. Primary and secondary outcomes measures are shown in Additional file 4.
Effects of interventions
Summary of study results are given in Additional file 5. Additional file 6 includes harvest plots summarizing the effects of included studies. The quality of evidence and summary of findings for each outcome is shown in a detailed table in Additional file 7.
Canal repositioning manoeuvres
CRM versus CRM variations
Comparing CRM (Epley manoeuvre) with CRM and distinct additional instructions like wearing a neck collar for 48 hours after manoeuvre or using a mini-vibrator placed on the mastoid of affected side during manoeuvre revealed no advantage for posterior canal BPPV caused by canalolithiasis as measured by the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) (no primary outcome stated, n = 53 participants) [31].
Vestibular rehabilitation
A total of 12 studies (55%) with 1,284 participants investigated vestibular rehabilitation (VR) [30, 35–37, 41, 42, 44, 47–51] which was therefore the most investigated intervention.
VR compared to usual care
The comparison of internet-based VR and usual care showed an effect on Vertigo Symptom Scale (VSS-SF) total score (primary outcome) in favour of VR (n = 296 participants, -2.26 points, p = .02) for patients with dizziness over the last two years and still experiencing dizziness triggered by head movements. Secondary outcomes showed mixed effects. Analysis of DHI score (-5.58 points, p = .01), and the patient reported improvement (p < .001) revealed effects in favour of VR. No significant differences were found in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [35].
No difference in DHI (primary outcome) was reported for patients with dizziness when comparing usual care with a multicomponent program that includes the assessment of fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) stepped mental health care or exercise therapy (n = 168 participants) in a RCT. No difference of dizziness frequency, presence of anxiety and depressive disorder, QoL and fall frequency was found [49].
A RCT with 165 participants experiencing balance disorders compared the Otago programme with receiving a fall-prevention booklet and continuing usual activities (optimized usual care). No effect in favour of the intervention could be observed in the primary outcomes mCTSIB, Limits of Stability (LOS), Rhythmic Weight Shift (RWS). Within secondary outcomes, an effect in favour of intervention was shown in the step test (worse leg) (+2.10 steps/15 s, p ≤ .001), in hip abductor muscle strength (+ .02 kg/kg, p ≤ .001), in the Walk-across Test (WA) (-2.17 cm, p ≤ .001), in the Functional Reach Test (FRT) (+2.95 cm, p ≤ .001) and on the Human Activity Profile–Adjusted Activity Score (HAP-AAS) (+4.57 points, p ≤ .001). No effects were reported regarding Sit to Stand Test (STS), the Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5x-STS), muscle strength of quadriceps and dorsiflexors, walking speed, the Step Quick Turn test (SQT), in quality of life as measured by Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) and falls measured in the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES) [44].
A non-randomized study with 60 participants experiencing balance disorders and a history of falls or having fear of falling investigated additional Cawthorne-Cooksey exercise programme versus conventional physical therapy did not specify a primary outcome. An effect in favour of the intervention (-0.77 points, p = .030) as measured by the Visual Analogue Scale of Fear of Falling (VAS-FOF) and in the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) (+1.3 points, p = .013) was reported. No differences in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the likelihood of falls were found [50].
A RCT with 660 participants with mild to moderate Parkinson´s Disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages 2-3) evaluated the effectiveness of VR versus usual care. The study did not specify a primary outcome. Mixed results were found: A significant benefit of +9 points (p = < .05) on BBS, +4 points (p = < .05) in DGI and +27.5 points for Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) (p < .05). No significant difference was found in mCTSIB total score, Unified Parkinson´s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Timed-Up and Go test (TUG) and Quality of life measured by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) [30].
When comparing classical physiotherapy (described as “individually tailored and including flexibility, strengthening, posture, breathing balance, walking exercises, and other functional activities”) with additional sensorimotor integration training versus classical physiotherapy (n = 30 participants with Parkinson´s Disease Hoehn and Yahr stages 2–3, no primary outcome stated), mixed results were found in a RCT. Effects in favour of intervention were found in the 5th position (+24.16, p = .027) and composite (+12.8, p = .042) of Computerized Dynamic Posturography – Sensory Organization Test (CDP-SOT) and in vestibular system score (VEST) in Computerized Dynamic Posturography –Sensory Analysis (CDP-Sensory) (+25.43, p = .048), on BBS (+10.34 points, p = .037) and in TUG (-4.11 seconds, p = .002). No differences were reported for 6th position of CDP-SOT, somatosensory system score (SOM), visual system score (VIS) and visual preference score (PREF) in CDP-Sensory, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the Functional Reach Test (FRT) [47].
Moderate quality of evidence exists, that VR is superior to usual care to improve VDB symptoms, balance and mobility, but not postural control, the impact of VDB on ADL and the presence of anxiety and depression, Parkinson´s disease specific ADL, quality of life, frequency of falls and fear of falling.
VR versus no intervention
Two studies investigated VR versus no intervention.
A RCT (n = 85 participants with fall-related wrist fractures) showed no differences in primary outcomes (tandem standing with eyes open and closed and walking in a modified figure of eight). In secondary outcomes, no differences were reported when measuring SOLEO, SOLEC, 5x-STS, postural sway, vibration sense, head-shake test, EQ5D-VAS and walking variations [37].
A non-randomized study (n = 58 participants with multisensory dizziness) stated no primary outcome. Mixed effects were found. An improvement in standing on one leg with eyes closed (SOLEC) (+1 second, p = .038) and in walking heel to toe (-2 steps, p = .044). No difference was observed in standing on one leg with eyes open (SOLEO), tandem standing with eyes open and closed, DHI, steps outside during walking in a figure of eight and the risk of falls maintained [36].
Training computer dynamic posturography exercises compared to no intervention (n = 139 participants experiencing balance impairment without a vestibular disease, no primary outcome stated) revealed to no differences in SOT, LOS, DHI, TUG and FES-I in a four-arm study, for which other comparison groups are described as follows [51].
New variations versus established forms of VR
VR in addition to CRM was compared to the CRM alone (n = 16 participants with BPPV for at least 6 months) in a RCT. Primary outcomes showed mixed effects: A difference in Maximum Excursion (MXE) of LOS (+17%, p < .05) and DGI (+4 points, p = .05) in favour of intervention and no differences in mCTSIB and movement velocity (MVL) of LOS. Secondary outcomes also revealed mixed results: a difference in tandem end sway (1 seconds in the p < .05) favouring intervention and no difference in sway in Unilateral Stance Test (US) and VAS [41].
A RCT with 125 participants (older people referred to a Falls Outpatient Clinic) investigated the Otago exercise programme in groups compared to the Otago exercise programme at home. The primary outcome BBS showed no difference. Secondary outcomes revealed mixed effects. Significant differences in 5x-STS (+2.2 seconds, p = .005) and TUG (-2.4 seconds, p = .038) were reported. No differences were shown in quality of life measuring the short-form questionnaire SF-36 and on the Fall Efficiency Scale International (FES-I) [48].
A RCT with 82 participants with dizziness resulting from a vestibular disorder assessed a multimodal version of the Cawthorne-Cooksey programme versus the conventional version and observed no difference in primary outcome DGI. Also secondary outcomes showed no difference measuring STS, Romberg, tandem stand, sensorial, unipedal and handgrip strength, TUG, multidirectional FRT and fall rate [42].
A four-arm RCT compared VR with computer dynamic posturography exercises to exposure to optokinetic stimuli and exercises at home based on the Cawthorne-Cooksey programme in patients with balance impairment without a vestibular disease. Information about changes in SOT, DHI, TUG and FES-I is missing. No primary outcome was stated [51].
Moderate quality of evidence exists, that VR in addition to CRM is superior to CRM alone to improve balance. Very low quality of evidence exists, that the Otago exercise programme in groups is superior to the Otago exercise programme at home to improve lower extremity strength and mobility.
Computer-assisted VR
Five studies investigated computer-assisted VR (CAVR) (237 participants) [34, 38, 43, 45, 46].
CAVR versus usual care
No information about the comparison between WiiFit training and traditional exercises (n = 36 participants with idiopathic Parkinson´s Disease Hoehn and Yahr stages 2-3) is provided, but the comparison of virtual reality-based Wii Fit training with subsequent treadmill training to fall-prevention education with no structured programmeis described. This third arm of the RCT is described hereafter [38]. A RCT with 20 participants with chronic stroke-related complaints investigated additional balance training using the Wii Fit programme to conventional physical therapy in comparison to conventional physiotherapy. No primary outcome was stated. No difference was reported in balance, body symmetry, BBS, TUG and 7-level functional independence measure (FIM) [46].
CAVR versus no intervention
Neither effects in SOT nor in the Verbal Reaction Time (VRT) were found when virtual reality-augmented balance training with PT were compared with no intervention (n = 42 participants with Parkinson´s disease Hoehn and Yahr stages 2-3). No primary outcome was stated [45].
CAVR versus other interventions
A three-arm RCT (n = 36 participants) explored virtual reality-based Wii Fit training with subsequent treadmill training in comparison to fall-prevention education with no structured programme for idiopathic Parkinson´s Disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages 2-3). No primary outcome was stated. Mixed results were found. Advantages in gait parameters (+12.87 cm/s, p < .05) in regard to velocity, (+15.41 cm, p < .05) stride length, (+16.5 N, , p < .05) hip flexors, (+12.5 N, p < .05) hip extensors, (+14.6 N, p < .05) knee flexors, (+28.1 N, p < .05) knee extensors, (+37.5 N, p < .05) ankle dorsiflexors and (+25.5 N, p < .05) ankle plantar flexors, as well as (+20.5, p < .05) in vestibular ratio of SOT. Also a significant difference (+4.59 points, p < .05) in the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) was observed. As the third arm, when the traditional exercise group (CG) was compared with the fall-prevention education group (CoG), all parameters changed significantly in the last follow-up except for the vision component of SOT. No primary outcome was stated. Changes in general were greater when WiiFit was compared with fall-prevention education than when traditional exercises were compared with education [38].
Home exercises supported by the “Move it to improve it” (Mitii) computer programme versus a printed home programme (n = 63 participants with vestibular dysfunction) showed no difference in the primary outcome one-leg stand test. No difference in secondary outcomes Motion Sensitivity, VAS, Chair stand test, DHI, DGI, quality of life measured with SF-12 [43].
A RCT compared in-home virtual reality balance training (TeleWii) to in-clinic sensory integration balance training (n = 76 participants with Parkinson´s Disease modified Hoehn and Yahr stages 2.5–3). No significant differences in the primary outcome BBS as well as ABC, 10-MW, DGI, Quality of life measuring PDQ-39, and in falls were observed [34].
Moderate quality of evidence exists, that virtual reality-based Wii Fit training with subsequent treadmill training is superior in comparison to fall-prevention education with no structured programme to improve gait parameters, lower extremity strength, balance and to improve postural control.
Tai Chi as VR
Tai Chi as a form of VR was used in three studies (216 participants) [32, 33, 39].
Tai Chi VR (TCVR) versus no/sham intervention
A RCT (n = 40 participants experiencing dizziness within the past year, no primary outcome stated) investigated TCVR compared to no intervention and reported significant differences (+61 cm, p = .050) forward, (+1.37 cm, p = .024) backward, (+28.57 cm2, p = .002) in the maximal sway area of the LOS and (- .23 seconds, p = .003) in the 8-foot up-and-go test. No differences were found in right- and leftward of LOS [39].
TCVR was compared to music percussion as sham intervention (n = 40 participants with visual impairment) in a RCT where no primary outcome was stated. Mixed effects were found. Differences (-30.1%, p = .032) of the absolute angle error of the passive knee joint repositioning test, (+59.7%, p = .006) in the visual ratio and (+50.3%, p = .048) in the vestibular ratio of SOT. No difference were reported in concentric isokinetic knee extensor or flexor strength of dominant leg and in somatosensory ratio [33].
Low quality of evidence exists, that TCVR is superior to no/sham intervention to improve postural control. Very low quality of evidence exists, that TCVR is superior to no/sham intervention to improve mobility.
TCVR versus other interventions
A RCT with 136 participants with a history of stroke at least 6 months ago exploring TCVR in comparison to breathing and stretching exercises reported mixed effects in primary outcomes LOS and SOT: A difference (p = .005) in reaction time of non-affected side, (p = .005) in end-point excursion of non-affected and affected sides and (p = .05) backwards and forwards in LOS. No difference in all conditions of equilibrium score and sensory ratios of SOT and in reaction time of all other sides in LOS. Secondary outcome TUG showed no difference [32].
Very low quality of evidence exists, that TCVR is superior to breathing and stretching exercises.
Manual therapy
Manual therapy using Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides (SNAGs) was investigated in one RCT (n = 86 participants with cervicogenic dizziness), which reported significant effects in primary outcome (-18.4 mm, p = .01) on visual analogue scale (VAS) dizziness intensity compared to the sham intervention. Secondary outcomes revealed mixed effects. Effects (-0.9 points, p < .001) in dizziness frequency, no differences in VAS pain and DHI. In the same study, using Maitland mobilizations instead of SNAGs, Maitland mobilizations did not change the primary outcome VAS dizziness intensity. Secondary outcomes showed mixed effects: Effects (-7.6 points, p = .04) in DHI and no effects in dizziness frequency and VAS pain [40]. Very low quality of evidence exists, that SNAGs are superior to sham intervention, but equal to Maitland mobilizations to improve dizziness intensity. Maitland mobilizations are with very low quality of evidence superior to SNAGs and sham intervention to improve the impact of VDB on ADL.
Adverse effects
Mild transient pain in the lower cervical spine or upper arm 24 hours after SNAGs was reported [40]. No other adverse effects were reported.