Skip to main content

Economic burden of vertigo: a systematic review



Vertigo, a highly prevalent disease, imposes a rising burden on the health care system, exacerbated by the ageing of the population; and further, contributes to a wide span of indirect burden due to reduced capacity to work or need of assistance in activities of daily living. The aim of this review was to summarise the evidence on the economic burden of vertigo.


All original studies published between 2008 and 2018 about the economic evaluation of peripheral or central vestibular vertigo in developed countries were considered eligible, unrestricted to setting, health care provider, or study type.


The electronic search in three databases identified 154 studies from which 16 qualified for inclusion. All studies presented partial economic evaluation referring to a variety of vestibular vertigo including unspecified vertigo. Nine studies presented monetised cost results and seven studies reported health care utilization. Direct costs derived mainly from repeated and not well-targeted consultations at all levels of health care, excessive use of diagnostic imaging, and/or of emergency care. Considerable societal burden was caused by decreased productivity, mainly due to work absenteeism.


To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the existing evidence of the economic burden of vertigo. The lack of conclusive evidence revealed apparent targets of future research. First, studies of diagnostics and therapies for vestibular disease should include cost-effectiveness considerations. Population-based studies of health services utilization should include simple vestibular assessments to get more reliable estimates of the burden of disease and associated costs on the level of the general population. Further, clinical and population-based registries that include patients with vestibular disease, should consider collecting long-term data of societal burden. Primary data collection should increasingly include assessment of health care utilization e.g. by linking their diagnoses and outcomes to routine data from health insurances.


Vertigo and dizziness, belonging to the most frequent symptoms with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 17–30% [1], cover diseases and conditions of various origin [2, 3]. In a narrower sense, vertigo refers to peripheral or central vestibular diseases with a lifetime prevalence of up to 10% [1, 4] and a yearly incidence of 1.4% [4]. The most prevalent types of peripheral vestibular vertigo are benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), Meniere’s disease (MD), vestibular neuritis and bilateral vestibulopathy; vestibular migraine is one of the most common examples of central vestibular vertigo [3, 5].

Arguably, vertigo and dizziness are among the main drivers for health care utilization from primary care [6,7,8] through specialist care [9] to tertiary level hospitals [10]; therefore may have a high impact on direct costs in industrialized countries. The increasing prevalence of vertigo in older population [11] further contributes to this burden of health care [12].

Individuals with acute symptoms may present at all levels of the health system including emergency services [13, 14]; however most instances of vertigo might be diagnosed and treated at the primary care level [15]. This is often not the case, leading to unjustified diagnostic procedures, prolonged time to diagnosis and repeated specialist consultations [6]. One major driver of direct health care costs may be the overutilization of imaging procedures, which actually would have a well-defined but limited role in differentiating vestibular disease from rare but life-threatening conditions such as stroke [16]. Regarding therapy in BPPV, the most prevalent type of vertigo in older adults [4], liberatory manoeuvres [17, 18] may bring fast relief [19]. Pharmacotherapy has its place in a limited number of pathologies [20]; vestibular rehabilitation [21] should be offered to all patients with vestibular deficiency [22].

Regarding indirect costs, vertigo can be a reason for sick leave and occupational disability. In a study from the United Kingdom (UK) and Italy, patients reported a mean of 7 days absence from work due to dizziness in the previous 6 months [23]. From those patients still working, over 50% felt that their work efficiency had dropped [23]; over one fourth of them had changed their jobs and 21% had quit work [23]. Likewise, in Belgium, more than half of the patients of a tertiary dizziness center reported having been on sick leave due to dizziness, and 12% were completely unable to return to work [24].

Also, vestibular disease may cause considerable restrictions of activities of daily living [23] and quality of life [25]. Loss of quality of life from vestibular disease was recently estimated to amount to a total of 64,929 USD lifetime economic burden per patient, or in a total lifetime societal burden of 227 billion USD for the USA population over 60 years of age [26].

As financial burden of disease seems to be considerable for vertigo and dizziness, we aimed to summarise the evidence from available quantitative studies in a systematic way. Specifically, we aimed to summarize information on costs arising from diagnosis, referral or therapy.


In this review the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [27] was followed.

Search strategy and eligibility criteria

All original studies regarding any kind of economic evaluation of vertigo were considered irrespective of study design or perspective (e.g. payer or society).

The detailed search strategy for the electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library is presented in the Additional file 1 Beside the general terms “vertigo” or “dizziness”, the search terms were compiled to cover the above listed most prevalent vertigo types of peripherial or central vestibular origin, and functional vertigo; including both their referring Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and additional free text. Restricting the search to title and abstract ensured to focus on studies handling vertigo or dizziness as the main topic of the study. Vestibular Schwannoma was excluded with respect to its surgical treatment being not comparable with the conservative management of all other vertigo types. MeSH terms representing a broad range of economic evaluation were completed with a free text search.

With respect to the comparability of economic results, developed countries according to the categorization of the United Nations Statistics Division [28] were selected. The hits were restricted to being published in English in the last 10 years, i.e. between October 2008–01. October 2018.

Full texts were retrieved via the online library service of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. We contacted two authors for further information unsuccessfully. The search in the electronic databases was not extended by a handpicked search. Study selection was performed by two independent researchers (XW and EK). Disagreement was resolved by discussion or in lack of consensus by the decision of a third researcher (EG).

Data collection

A Microsoft Excel form was prepared (XW) for collecting data of study characteristics, vertigo type(s), and outcome indicators. Assessing methodological quality and risk of bias, the list of Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) [29] was applied. One researcher (XW) performed the data extraction and a second researcher (EK) checked the data.

Conversion of the economic results

Costs expressed in national currencies and in different price years were reported both in original form and converted into 2016 USD using The Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Coordinating Centre (CCEMG –EPPI-Centre) Cost Converter [30]. The converter adjusts the price year according to the Gross Domestic Product deflator index; while conversion between countries/currencies is based on Purchasing Power Parities, in accordance with the recommendation of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [31].

In case of studies reporting health care utilization in units as an outcome, health care utilization in units as an outcome, despite considerable efforts we were not able to retrieve historical unit prices for converting reported units into monetary estimates.


Study selection

The electronic search identified 154 studies from three databases. After removing duplicates, 104 studies were screened by title and abstract according to the eligibility criteria. Inclusion was discussed in 21 cases, resulting in 35 studies qualifying for full-text reading. Disagreement was then solved by discussion in 17 cases, and in lack of consensus in six cases, the third researcher made the decision. Sixteen studies were included in the review. Figure 1 presents the flow of study selection.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection

Study characteristics

Detailed description of the original studies, the setting, timeframe, included vertigo type(s), the selection criteria, the main characteristics of the study population, and the reported type of burden was presented in Table 1. The 16 studies covered seven countries: the USA (seven studies [32,33,34, 36, 38, 42, 44];), the UK (three studies [41, 45, 47];), Germany (three studies [37, 40, 46];), Canada (one study [39];), Norway (one study [43];) and a multicentre study [35] from which we selected the data referring to the developed countries in Europe, namely the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, and Slovenia. Health care providers were primary care [47], emergency department in four studies [33, 34, 39, 42], and hospital in three studies [36, 41, 44]. Two studies covered more than one sector of the health care system [35, 37]; and five studies applied a population-based approach [32, 38, 40, 45, 46].

Table 1 Characteristics of selected studies

Regarding the type of the vertigo, addressed diseases and symptoms ranged from unspecified patient-reported dizziness [46] to verified vestibular diseases such as uni- or bilateral vestibular deficiency (UVD, BVD) [36, 44], MD [45], and BPPV [41]. Most of the studies covered a range of central and peripherial vestibular vertigo [40], including undiagnosed vertigo [32,33,34,35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47]; and including functional vertigo as well [37].

The studies reported the burden of vertigo by variuos means: resource use per patient, aggregated to or in rate of a certain population; monetised cost either measured or estimated per patient, per diagnostic investigation and/or per positive yield, or on different agggregation level. The applied population covered a wide range from general population, nationally representative patient sample or overall national health care data, or patient population diverse in terms of the above detailed diagnoses and health care services (Table 1).

With two exceptions [41, 47], the studies were observational; quality criteria items referring to an intervention being not applicable. This resulted in a median quality score of six from 19 total of the CHEC (Additional file 2). One of the studies [44] conducted a sensitivity analysis; one study [42] applied inflation adjustment.

Direct costs of vertigo

Two studies calculated the overall annual cost per patient [44, 45], and seven studies reported specific monetised cost components [33, 34, 36, 41, 42, 44, 47]. Seven studies reported health care utilization [32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 43, 46]. Table 2 demonstrates the detailed direct costs (both in original currency and in 2016 USD) and/or health care utilization data reported by the studies.

Table 2 Direct costs of vertigo

Medical consultations

From the unselected adult (17–79 year-old) population 1.8% had a consultation in the previous 12 months [40]. In Germany these consultations were roughly equally distributed between primary health care and specialists [40]; in the USA the contribution of primary health care providers was 14.3% [38].

Separated according to the level of health care, the range of primary care consultations was 1.1–2.6 occasion, and the range of specialist consultation was 0.8–1.8 [35] within the 3 month observation period in European countries. More than two consultations occurred in 61.3% of the vertigo patients [37]. Vestibular vertigo patients had more consultations than patients with non-vestibular vertigo [40]. Co-morbid anxiety increased the number of consultations up to 6.6 (SD 5.4) within the previous 12 months [46]. Higher age also contributed to more consultations [35, 40].

Emergency care

Occasions of emergency care visits ranged from 0.1 to 0.6 [35] within 3 months in European countries, or 0.1 (SD 0.5) to 0.4 (SD 0.8) within 12 months [44] in the USA, the latter corresponding to mean costs of 94–274 (range 0–2374) USD per case [44]. In a USA national overview, 3.9 million emergency care visits in 2011 resulted in 3.9 billion USD total costs, i.e. on average 1004 USD per patient and visit [42].


Hospitalisation in Germany due to vertigo was reported by 1.9% of the unselected adult population [40]. Lifetime hospitalisation occurred in 10% of vestibular vertigo patients and in 5% of patients with non-vestibular vertigo [40].

The number of hospital days ranged from 0.4 to 1.7 days during a 3 month observation period [35] in European countries. In the USA, BVD patients had 1.4 (SD 0.8) hospital visits within 12 months, causing a 203 (range 0–348) USD cost [44]. Advanced age contributed to longer hospital stay [35].

Diagnostic procedures

Patients in Germany underwent on average 3.2 (range 0–6) instrumental diagnostic procedures [37], the older age group receiving significantly less [32, 37]. Economic reporting about diagnostic procedures focused on imaging, being the most frequently used [37], and the most expensive diagnostic procedures accounted for 12% of the total annual costs for dizziness visits [42]. Prior to referral to a German tertiary balance centre, 82% of the patients received either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) [37].

CT was performed in 22.8% [42] and up to 50% [39] of the vertigo patients, depending on the setting, i.e. general patient population or emergency patients, respectively. Each 10-years step in age increased the probability of scanning to 1.4 times [33]. CT use showed an increasing trend in a national-level USA study [42], with an almost two-thirds increase between 2005 and 2009. However, the yielding rate of CT for vestibular diseases was reported to be low, from 0.74% [33] to 3.6% [34]. This resulted in a high diagnostic cost for positive findings, ranging from 54,540 USD [34] to 176,720 USD [33].

MRI was applied in 5.4% [33] to 18.6% [36] of the patients. The yielding rate for vestibular diseases was between 12.2% [33] and 13.8% [36] with a cost range for a positive yield of 15,737 USD [36] to 36,025 USD [34].

Other diagnostic methods were less frequent than imaging: head impulse test was performed in 5% of the patients and the Dix-Hallpike manoeuvre in 31.4% [39]. Among the listed diagnostic methods, head impulse test had the highest yielding rate for vestibular disease of 29% [39].

Therapy and medication

Vertigo patients had on average 1.8 (range 0–8) different therapies; the most frequent therapy was medication (61.0% of all patients), with mean of 1.8 (range 0–17) drugs per patient [37]. Physical therapy was prescribed in 41.3% of the patients [37]. The liberatory Epley manoeuvre was performed in 15.3% of BPPV patients [39].

Indirect costs of vertigo

Loss of working days (Table 3) ranged from 13.1 (SD 14.6) days during a 3 month observation period [35], to 69 (SD 106) days in 12 months [44], the latter corresponding to a mean productivity loss of 12,542 USD [44]. Sick leave was significantly higher in vestibular vertigo patients than in patients with non-vestibular vertigo [40]. Also, 69.8% of the patients reported they had to reduce their workload, 4.6% changed their job and 5.7% quit work [35]. In Norway, almost 1 % of the overall long-term sickness absence was caused by vertigo [43]. Among the affected patients, 23% of women and 24% of men obtained a disability pension [43].

Table 3 Indirect costs of vertigo

Regarding non-monetary burden of disease, both vestibular vertigo patients and patients with non-vestibular vertigo reported avoiding leaving the house (18.5% and 10.1%, respectively), experienced an interruption of daily activities (40.3% and 11.5%, respectively), and perceived reduced quality of life [40] and relevant restrictions in daily life [44]. Concomitant anxiety was reported to further impair social life [46]. Patients with chronic vestibular loss reported an increased frequency of falls [44].

Two studies report on both direct and indirect cost, indicating that the latter may be even higher [44, 45].

Total costs

Two studies provided a wider view of the total cost of vertigo. A UK study [45] estimated as comprehensive cost of MD 3341–3757 GBP [4865 – 5470] per patients annually. A USA study included emergency visits and hospitalisation plus an estimation of lost working days, adding an average annual economic burden of 13,717 USD per BVD patients [44].


This review is the first to explore the economic burden of vertigo and dizziness including direct and indirect costs. We found large heterogeneity in respect to the investigated sector of the health care system, the type of the vertigo, and the cost components; the quality of studies was mostly mediocre. Annually up to 9.6 visits were reported at the primary care provider [35], up to 7.2 visits at the specialist [35], with up to 6 instrumental diagnostic procedures [37]. Imaging was performed in up to 82% of the patients [37] with a cost of up to 164,700 [176,720] USD per positive yield [33]. Up to 2.4 presentations occurred at the emergency department [35], leading to up to 6.8 hospital days [35]. The trend of the number of ED visits, and imaging due to the vertigo was rising [38, 42]. Studies identified an increase by aging of the population in vertigo prevalence [32, 36, 38], in vertigo-related health care demand [35, 38, 40, 42] and in imaging performed [33]; however, not in the number of other investigations [37].

The original studies reported three main drivers of increased direct costs: unnecessarily repeated consultations of primary, and specialist care, and referrals, where primary care would have been sufficient; excessive use of diagnostic imaging, and excessive use of emergency care, the latter mainly in countries where statutory affordable health insurance is not broadly available.

The number of referrals and consultations largely depends on the respective health care system. Typically, a system of statutory health insurance will regulate reconsultation and referral, however, in rather liberal systems such as Germany, referral is easy and sometimes more cost effective for the primary care physician [48]. Also, in an earlier study we found that primary care providers do not always feel competent to diagnose and treat vertigo [49]. Consequently, patients with vertigo may undergo several consultations and referrals without clear diagnosis or therapy [6, 35, 40].

Second, several studies examined the excess costs of extensive imaging procedures [33, 34, 42]. It is reasonable to assume that physicians do not want to overlook life-threatening diseases. In absence of defined clinical pathways and in systems where imaging is broadly available, imaging seems like an easy solution. In contrast, low-cost examination techniques that require a certain skill set, such as the head impulse test [50] seem to be underutilized [39].

Third, consulting emergency care is not unusual because vertigo is a worrying symptom. However, overuse of the emergency department because of vertiginous symptoms may be a direct result of a system where primary care is not always affordable or available [51].

The limited data on indirect costs due to vertigo indicate that it may be considerable [35, 44, 45].

Considering the three main drivers of direct costs, there is no easy solution to the problem. Original studies recognising the problem of unnecessary or not well-targeted investigations argued for guidelines or managed care [33, 34, 42]. Application of clinical practice guidelines may provide benefit even in terms of preventing unnecessary diagnostic investigations, and supporting evidence-based resource use; thus, contributing to savings [52, 53]. The German Association for Primary Care has put forward a set of guidelines for management of vertigo in the primary care setting [54]. Likewise, guidelines exist in the USA [55], in the Netherlands [56], in Spain [57], in Croatia [58], or in China [59]. Treating vertigo frequently needs a multidisciplinary approach with combined expertise from several medical and therapeutic professions. Capacity building may reduce the vertigo-related direct costs through promoting evidence-based practices and increasing the knowledge base. However, due to the fragmentation of health care, PCPs often lack resources and time to coordinate such a team-based approach [60]. There is therefore an urgent need to focus economic research on the detected fields of main cost drivers, and investigate the effectiveness of care pathways and managed care approaches.


The selected studies targeted various types of vestibular diseases and various cost components, providing a fragmented and incomplete picture. With respect to the limited number of cost reporting, we included studies reporting health care utilisation. Due to difficulties of finding historical unit price information, these were not converted to a monetised form. Though technical and equipment costs might be similar e.g. for imaging, other background aspects of national regulation and financing of the health care system may divert these prices in a broad range [61]. Thus, the financial burden may widely deviate in different countries even by similar prevalence of vertigo and similar frequency of health care utilisation. This limits the value of these data regarding the economic burden of vertigo. The gatekeeping function of primary care and the direct accessibility of specialist consultation is regulated differently depending on the country, thus, the utilisation of consultations on different levels of health care are not directly comparable.


To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the existing evidence of the economic burden of vertigo. Results demonstrated that vertigo contributes to an increasing trend of direct health care costs, due to the ageing of the population. Three main cost drivers due to insufficient diagnostic skills were identified. Repeated and not well-targeted health care consultations on all levels, excessive use of expensive diagnostic imaging, and unnecessary assignment to emergency care. Several studies demonstrated that the ageing of the population contributes to an increasing trend of direct health care costs in persons with vertigo.

The main result, i.e. that there is no conclusive evidence expressing an overall economic burden, may seem disappointing at first. It is, however, the objective of any systematic review not only to summarize existing knowledge but also to summarize apparent gaps of evidence. There are several direct consequences from this gap:

  1. 1.

    Future studies of new or established diagnostic devices and therapies for vestibular disease should include cost-effectiveness considerations.

  2. 2.

    Population-based studies that focus on health care utilization should include simple assessments of vestibular function to get more reliable estimates of burden of disease and associated costs on the level of the general population.

  3. 3.

    Clinical and population-based registries that include patients with vestibular disease, should invest more effort in the exact characterization of disease and consider collecting long-term patient-reported outcomes, absence from work and other types of societal burden.

  4. 4.

    Primary data collection should increasingly include assessment of health care utilization e.g. by linking their diagnoses and outcomes to routine data from health insurances.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.



benign paroxysmal positional vertigo


bilateral vestibular deficiency

CCEMG – EPPI-Centre:

The Campbell and Cochrane Economics Methods Group and the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre


Consensus on Health Economic Criteria


computed tomography


Emergency department




Great Britain pound


head impulse test


International classification of diseases


Medical Subject Headings


Meniere’s disease


magnetic resonance imaging


United Kingdom


United States of America


United States dollar


unilateral vestibular deficiency


  1. Murdin L, Schilder AG. Epidemiology of balance symptoms and disorders in the community: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(3):387–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Neuhauser HK. Epidemiology of vertigo. Curr Opin Neurol. 2007;20(1):40–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Strupp M, Brandt T. Diagnosis and treatment of vertigo and dizziness. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105(10):173–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Neuhauser HK. The epidemiology of dizziness and vertigo. Handb Clin Neurol. 2016;137:67–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brandt T, Dieterich M, Strupp M. Vertigo and dizziness. Common complaints. London: Springer-Verlag; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Grill E, Penger M, Kentala E. Health care utilization, prognosis and outcomes of vestibular disease in primary care settings: systematic review. J Neurol. 2016;263(Suppl 1):S36–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kruschinski C, Kersting M, Breull A, Kochen MM, Koschack J, Hummers-Pradier E. Frequency of dizziness-related diagnoses and prescriptions in a general practice database. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102(5):313–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rieger A, Mansmann U, Maier W, Seitz L, Brandt T, Strupp M, et al. Management of patients with the cardinal symptom dizziness or vertigo. Gesundheitswesen. 2014;76(6):e32–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Luscher M, Theilgaard S, Edholm B. Prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic groups amongst 1034 patients seen in ENT practices for dizziness. J Laryngol Otol. 2014;128(2):128–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guerra-Jimenez G, Arenas Rodriguez A, Falcon Gonzalez JC, Perez Plasencia D, Ramos Macias A. Epidemiology of vestibular disorders in the otoneurology unit. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2017;68(6):317–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fernandez L, Breinbauer HA, Delano PH. Vertigo and dizziness in the elderly. Front Neurol. 2015;6:144.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Maarsingh OR, Dros J, Schellevis FG, van Weert HC, Bindels PJ, Horst HE. Dizziness reported by elderly patients in family practice: prevalence, incidence, and clinical characteristics. BMC Fam Pract. 2010;11:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lempert T, Neuhauser H. Epidemiology of vertigo, migraine and vestibular migraine. J Neurol. 2009;256(3):333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kroenke K, Hoffman RM, Einstadter D. How common are various causes of dizziness? A critical review. South Med J. 2000;93(2):160–7 quiz 8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brandt T, Strupp M, Dieterich M. Five keys for diagnosing most vertigo, dizziness, and imbalance syndromes: an expert opinion. J Neurol. 2014;261(1):229–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Connor SE, Sriskandan N. Imaging of dizziness. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(2):111–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Epley JM. The canalith repositioning procedure: for treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992;107(3):399–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Semont A, Freyss G, Vitte E. Curing the BPPV with a liberatory maneuver. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 1988;42:290–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hilton MP, Pinder DK. The Epley (canalith repositioning) manoeuvre for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(12):Cd003162.

  20. Strupp M, Zwergal A, Feil K, Bremova T, Brandt T. Pharmacotherapy of vestibular and cerebellar disorders and downbeat nystagmus: translational and back-translational research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015;1343:27–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kundakci B, Sultana A, Taylor AJ, Alshehri MA. The effectiveness of exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation in adult patients with chronic dizziness: a systematic review. F1000Research. 2018;7:276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hall CD, Herdman SJ, Whitney SL, Cass SP, Clendaniel RA, Fife TD, et al. Vestibular rehabilitation for peripheral vestibular hypofunction: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline: FROM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION NEUROLOGY SECTION. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016;40(2):124–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bronstein AM, Golding JF, Gresty MA, Mandala M, Nuti D, Shetye A, et al. The social impact of dizziness in London and Siena. J Neurol. 2010;257(2):183–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van der Zaag-Loonen HJ, van Leeuwen RB. Dizziness causes absence from work. Acta Neurol Belg. 2015;115(3):345–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ciorba A, Bianchini C, Scanelli G, Pala M, Zurlo A, Aimoni C. The impact of dizziness on quality-of-life in the elderly. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;274(3):1245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Agrawal Y, Pineault KG, Semenov YR. Health-related quality of life and economic burden of vestibular loss in older adults. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2018;3(1):8–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9 w64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. United Nations Statistics Division 2010 [Available from:

  29. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):240–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. SHEMILT I, THOMAS J, MORCIANO M. A web-based tool for adjusting costs to a specific target currency and price year. Evid Policy. 2010;6:51–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 the cochrane collaboration; 2011 [Available from:

    Google Scholar 

  32. Adams ME, Marmor S, Yueh B, Kane RL. Geographic variation in use of vestibular testing among Medicare beneficiaries. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(2):312–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ahsan SF, Syamal MN, Yaremchuk K, Peterson E, Seidman M. The costs and utility of imaging in evaluating dizzy patients in the emergency room. Laryngoscope. 2013;123(9):2250–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ammar H, Govindu R, Fouda R, Zohdy W, Supsupin E. Dizziness in a community hospital: central neurological causes, clinical predictors, and diagnostic yield and cost of neuroimaging studies. J Commun Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2017;7(2):73–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Benecke H, Agus S, Kuessner D, Goodall G, Strupp M. The burden and impact of Vertigo: findings from the REVERT patient registry. Front Neurol. 2013;4:136.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gandolfi MM, Reilly EK, Galatioto J, Judson RB, Kim AH. Cost-effective analysis of unilateral vestibular weakness investigation. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(2):277–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Grill E, Strupp M, Muller M, Jahn K. Health services utilization of patients with vertigo in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. J Neurol. 2014;261(8):1492–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lin HW, Bhattacharyya N. Otologic diagnoses in the elderly: current utilization and predicted workload increase. Laryngoscope. 2011;121(7):1504–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McDowell T, Moore F. The under-utilization of the head impulse test in the emergency department. Can J Neurol Sci. 2016;43(3):398–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Neuhauser HK, Radtke A, von Brevern M, Lezius F, Feldmann M, Lempert T. Burden of dizziness and vertigo in the community. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2118–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Reddy VM, Sargent H, Prior MJ. Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo nurse-led follow-up clinic. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;268(6):829–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Saber Tehrani AS, Coughlan D, Hsieh YH, Mantokoudis G, Korley FK, Kerber KA, et al. Rising annual costs of dizziness presentations to U.S. emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20(7):689–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Skoien AK, Wilhemsen K, Gjesdal S. Occupational disability caused by dizziness and vertigo: a register-based prospective study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58(554):619–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Sun DQ, Ward BK, Semenov YR, Carey JP, Della Santina CC. Bilateral vestibular deficiency: quality of life and economic implications. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140(6):527–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Tyrrell J, Whinney DJ, Taylor T. The cost of Meniere’s disease: a novel multisource approach. Ear Hear. 2016;37(3):e202–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wiltink J, Tschan R, Michal M, Subic-Wrana C, Eckhardt-Henn A, Dieterich M, et al. Dizziness: anxiety, health care utilization and health behavior--results from a representative German community survey. J Psychosom Res. 2009;66(5):417–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Yardley L, Barker F, Muller I, Turner D, Kirby S, Mullee M, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of booklet based vestibular rehabilitation for chronic dizziness in primary care: single blind, parallel group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Harris M, Vedsted P, Esteva M, Murchie P, Aubin-Auger I, Azuri J, et al. Identifying important health system factors that influence primary care practitioners’ referrals for cancer suspicion: a European cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2018;8(9):e022904.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Stephan AJ, Kovacs E, Phillips A, Schelling J, Ulrich SM, Grill E. Barriers and facilitators for the management of vertigo: a qualitative study with primary care providers. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Newman-Toker DE, Curthoys IS, Halmagyi GM. Diagnosing stroke in acute Vertigo: the HINTS family of eye movement tests and the future of the “eye ECG”. Semin Neurol. 2015;35(5):506–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. van den Berg MJ, van Loenen T, Westert GP. Accessible and continuous primary care may help reduce rates of emergency department use. An international survey in 34 countries. Fam Pract. 2016;33(1):42–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kosimbei G, Hanson K, English M. Do clinical guidelines reduce clinician dependent costs? Health Res Policy Syst. 2011;9:24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Moran AE, Odden MC, Thanataveerat A, Tzong KY, Rasmussen PW, Guzman D, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hypertension therapy according to 2014 guidelines. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(5):447–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Abholz H-H, Jendyk R. Akuter Schwindel in der Hausarztpraxis. S3-Leitlinie. Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin (DEGAM); 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Bhattacharyya N, Gubbels SP, Schwartz SR, Edlow JA, El-Kashlan H, Fife T, et al. Clinical practice guideline: benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (update). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;156(3_suppl):S1–S47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. van Lieshout J, Assendelft WJ. Summary of the Dutch College of General Practitioners’ practice guideline ‘dizziness’. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2003;147(8):331–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Perez-Vazquez P, Franco-Gutierrez V, Soto-Varela A, Amor-Dorado JC, Martin-Sanz E, Oliva-Dominguez M, et al. Practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo otoneurology committee of Spanish otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery consensus document. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2018;69(6):345–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Maslovara S, Butkovic-Soldo S, Drvis P, Roje-Bedekovic M, Trotic R, Branica S, et al. Croatian guidelines for diagnosis and management of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). Lijec Vjesn. 2015;137(11–12):335–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Association SoOHaNSCM. Guideline of diagnosis and treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (2017). Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017;52(3):173–7.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kovacs E, Strobl R, Phillips A, Stephan AJ, Muller M, Gensichen J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of implementation strategies for non-communicable disease guidelines in primary health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(7):1142–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319(10):1024–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany; grant number BMBF FKZ 01EO1401. The financial sponsor played no role in the design, execution, analysis and interpretation of data, or writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



EG conceptualised the study. EK and XW performed the study selection and the data extraction. EK analysed and interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Kovacs.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1:

Detailed search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Assessment of study quality and risk of bias by the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria*.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kovacs, E., Wang, X. & Grill, E. Economic burden of vertigo: a systematic review. Health Econ Rev 9, 37 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: