Clinical use of Malay Version of Vertigo Symptom Scale (MVVSS) in Patients with Peripheral Vestibular Disorder (PVD)
- Author:
Zuraida Zainun
;
Mohd Normani Zakaria
;
Dinsuhaimi Sidek
;
Zalina Ismail
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Malay version Vertigo symptom scale;
Vertigo symptom scale;
Clinical used;
Vertigo;
Peripheral vestibular disorder;
Sensitivity;
Specificity
- From:
The Medical Journal of Malaysia
2012;67(4):386-389
- CountryMalaysia
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Introduction:The Vertigo symptom scale (VSS) is a well
established tool for the evaluation of vestibular disorders
and the associated symptoms of autonomic arousal and
somatosensation. By using a validated Malay version of
vertigo symptom scale (MVVSS) questionnaire, the severity
of the vertigo from patients’ perspective can be determined
and rated. Before MVVSS can be applied clinically among
Malaysians, it was of interest to determine its clinical value in identifying vestibular disorders.
Method: Forty normal and 65 PVD subjects participated in
this cross-sectional study. Normal subjects were recruited
amongst Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) staff and students
who had no history of ear and vestibular disorders.
Results: Mean total score of MVVSS in normal and PVD
subjects were 13.9 ± 11.1 and 30.1 ± 20.9, respectively. When the total scores of normal and PVD group were compared, the Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was a
significant difference between the two groups (p<0.05). This is consistent with previous studies. It was also of interest to see if subtypes of PVD [benign paroxymal positional vertigo (BPPV), Meniere’s disease, labyrinthitis and unknown] have different MVVSS results. However, analysis of variance (ANOVA) found no significant difference in term of outcomes of MVVSS among the different PVD pathologies. Using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) method, the
sensitivity and specificity of MVVSS were 71% and 60%,
respectively.
Conclusion: MVVSS is able to discriminate clinically among
the normal and PVD subjects. However, it is not a good
indicator for differential diagnosis of PVD subtypes, at least in this study. Its sensitivity and specificity in clinical diagnosis are reasonably high. Perhaps a bigger sample size would be useful to further study the clinical usefulness of MVVSS.
