Background

The DizzyQuest, an app-based vestibular diary, provides the opportunity to capture the number and nature of vertigo attacks in daily life. To accomplish this, the DizzyQuest provides different strategies: event sampling using an attack questionnaire, and time sampling using an evening questionnaire. Objective of this study was to investigate whether the number and nature of reported vertigo attacks was comparable between the two questionnaires.

Methods

Fifty-seven patients, who reported vertigo attacks, used the DizzyQuest for on average 24 days. The number and nature (including symptoms, triggers and duration) of vertigo attacks were compared between the attack and the evening questionnaire.

Results

The attack questionnaire was used 192 times. In contrast, at least 749 new vertigo attacks were reported in 446 evening questionnaires. A vertigo attack was not always reported in both questionnaires during the same day. Vertigo attacks that were most likely captured by both questionnaires were not always reported the same in both questionnaires regarding triggers and duration.

Conclusion

Event sampling using an attack questionnaire has low recall bias and, therefore, reliably captures the nature of the attack, but induces a risk of under-sampling. Time sampling using an evening questionnaire suffers from recall bias, but seems more likely to capture less discrete vertigo attacks and it facilitates registration of the absence of vertigo attacks. Depending on the clinical or research question, the right strategy should be applied and participants should be clearly instructed about the definition of a vertigo attack.

中文翻译：

---

DizzyQuest：有没有…眩晕发作？

背景

基于应用程序的前庭日记DizzyQuest提供了捕获日常生活中眩晕发作的次数和性质的机会。为此，DizzyQuest提供了不同的策略：使用攻击调查表进行事件采样，以及使用夜间调查表进行时间采样。这项研究的目的是调查两个问卷之间报告的眩晕发作的数量和性质是否具有可比性。

方法

报告眩晕发作的57位患者平均使用DizzyQuest 24天。在发作与夜间问卷之间比较了眩晕发作的数量和性质（包括症状，触发因素和持续时间）。

结果

攻击问卷被使用了192次。相比之下，在446份晚上的问卷中至少报告了749起新的眩晕发作。并非同一天在两个问卷中都报告了眩晕发作。两种问卷中最有可能捕获的眩晕发作在触发因素和持续时间方面均未始终在两种问卷中均报告为相同。

结论

使用攻击调查表进行事件抽样具有较低的召回偏见，因此可以可靠地捕获攻击的性质，但会引起抽样不足的风险。使用晚间问卷调查时间样本会产生回忆偏见，但似乎更有可能捕获较少的离散性眩晕发作，并且有助于记录没有眩晕发作的情况。根据临床或研究问题，应采用正确的策略，并应明确指示参与者有关眩晕发作的定义。