A practitioner should be aware that if a person whose symptoms are consistent with BPPV, but does not show improvement or resolution after undergoing different particle repositioning maneuvers — detailed in the Treatment section below — need to have a detailed neurological assessment and imaging performed to help identify the pathological condition. Differential diagnosis
Vertigo, a distinct process sometimes confused with the broader term, dizziness, accounts for about six million clinic visits in the United States every year; between 17 and 42% of these people are eventually diagnosed with BPPV. Other causes of vertigo include:

Motion sickness/motion intolerance: a disjunction between visual stimulation, vestibular stimulation, and/or proprioception
Visual exposure to nearby moving objects (examples of optokinetic stimuli include passing cars and falling snow)
Other diseases: (labyrinthitis, Ménières disease, and migraine, etc.) Treatment
Repositioning maneuvers
A number of maneuvers have been found to be effective including the Epley maneuver, the Semont maneuver, and to a lesser degree Brandt–Daroff exercises. Both the Epley and the Semont maneuvers are equally effective. None of these maneuvers addresses the presence of the particles (otoconia); rather it changes their location. The maneuvers aim to move these particles from some locations in the inner ear that cause symptoms such as vertigo and reposition them to where they do not cause these problems. These maneuvers are easily performed at home and online resources are available to patients. The Epley maneuver is the most popular of the maneuvers because it is designed to address particles in the posterior semicircular canal, the most common cause of BPPV.
Chest x-rays are increasingly preferred for the lungs as they give sufficient detail combined with a lower false-positive rate and significantly smaller radiation dose than CT.The frequency of CT scans during surveillance should ensure that relapses are detected at an early stage while minimizing the radiation exposure.For patients treated for stage I non-seminoma, a randomised trial (Medical Research Council TE08) showed that, when combined with the standard surveillance tests described above, 2 CT scans at 3 and 12 months were as good as 5 over 2 years in detecting relapse at an early stage. For patients treated for stage I seminoma who choose surveillance rather than undergoing adjuvant therapy, there have been no randomized trials to determine the optimum frequency of scans and visits, and the schedules vary very widely across the world, and within individual countries. In the UK there is an ongoing clinical trial called TRISST. This is assessing how often scans should take place and whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used instead of CT scans. MRI is being investigated because it does not expose the patient to radiation and so, if it is shown to be as good at detecting relapses, it may be preferable to CT.For more advanced stages of testicular cancer, and for those cases in which radiation therapy or chemotherapy was administered, the extent of monitoring (tests) after treatment will vary on the basis of the circumstances, but normally should be done for five years in uncomplicated cases and for longer in those with higher risks of relapse.