Heather Shaw Bonilha1, Kendrea L Focht2, Bonnie Martin-Harris3. 1. Department of Health Science and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: bonilhah@musc.edu. 2. Department of Health Science and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3. Department of Health Science and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy (LES) remains the clinical gold standard for assessing vocal fold function. LES is used to evaluate the efficacy of voice treatments in research studies and clinical practice. LES as a voice treatment outcome tool is only as good as the clinician interpreting the recordings. Research using LES as a treatment outcome measure should be evaluated based on rater methodology and reliability. The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate the rater-related methodology from studies that use stroboscopic findings as voice treatment outcome measures. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: Computerized journal databases were searched for relevant articles using terms: stroboscopy and treatment. Eligible articles were categorized and evaluated for the use of rater-related methodology, reporting of number of raters, types of raters, blinding, and rater reliability. RESULTS: Of the 738 articles reviewed, 80 articles met inclusion criteria. More than one-third of the studies included in the review did not report the number of raters who participated in the study. Eleven studies reported results of rater reliability analysis with only two studies reporting good inter- and intrarater reliability. CONCLUSION: The comparability and use of results from treatment studies that use LES are limited by a lack of rigor in rater methodology and variable, mostly poor, inter- and intrarater reliability. To improve our ability to evaluate and use the findings from voice treatment studies that use LES features as outcome measures, greater consistency of reporting rater methodology characteristics across studies and improved rater reliability is needed.
OBJECTIVES: Laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy (LES) remains the clinical gold standard for assessing vocal fold function. LES is used to evaluate the efficacy of voice treatments in research studies and clinical practice. LES as a voice treatment outcome tool is only as good as the clinician interpreting the recordings. Research using LES as a treatment outcome measure should be evaluated based on rater methodology and reliability. The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate the rater-related methodology from studies that use stroboscopic findings as voice treatment outcome measures. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: Computerized journal databases were searched for relevant articles using terms: stroboscopy and treatment. Eligible articles were categorized and evaluated for the use of rater-related methodology, reporting of number of raters, types of raters, blinding, and rater reliability. RESULTS: Of the 738 articles reviewed, 80 articles met inclusion criteria. More than one-third of the studies included in the review did not report the number of raters who participated in the study. Eleven studies reported results of rater reliability analysis with only two studies reporting good inter- and intrarater reliability. CONCLUSION: The comparability and use of results from treatment studies that use LES are limited by a lack of rigor in rater methodology and variable, mostly poor, inter- and intrarater reliability. To improve our ability to evaluate and use the findings from voice treatment studies that use LES features as outcome measures, greater consistency of reporting rater methodology characteristics across studies and improved rater reliability is needed.
Authors: Joseph Chang; Tuan-Jen Fang; Katherine Yung; Annemieke van Zante; Theodore Miller; Soha Al-Jurf; Sarah Schneider; Mark Courey Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Paul K Y Lam; Manwa L Ng; Ting K Cheung; Birgitta Y H Wong; Victoria P Y Tan; Daniel Y T Fong; William I Wei; Benjamin C Y Wong Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Mary Es Beaver; C Richard Stasney; Erik Weitzel; Miichael G Stewart; Donald T Donovan; Robert B Parke; Margarita Rodriguez Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Alexander T Hillel; Michael M Johns; Edie R Hapner; Manish Shah; Justin C Wise; Adam M Klein Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Maria E Powell; Dimitar D Deliyski; Steven M Zeitels; James A Burns; Robert E Hillman; Terri Treman Gerlach; Daryush D Mehta Journal: J Voice Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Maria E Powell; Dimitar D Deliyski; Robert E Hillman; Steven M Zeitels; James A Burns; Daryush D Mehta Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 2.408