RESUMO
There are ample of studies on use of VSS in order to find out the severity of vertigo symptoms, also studies portray the usefulness of VHQ to study the impact of vertigo on lifestyle; however, there is dearth of information on whether there is any correlation between the vertigo symptoms and affection on quality of life (QOL). Hence, the need arises to find out the correlation between VSS and VHQ for the better, documentation of symptoms and affection on QOL, as it will benefit treatment efficacy. METHODS: Sample size was 40. All the patients were given two questionnaires VSS and VHQ, which are self-administered. RESULTS: Correlation was found between total VSS and its dimensions with VHQ using Karl Pearson correlation coefficient method. Thus, we concluded that increase or decrease in the scores of VSS has an effect on the scores of VHQ.
RESUMO
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.