Kendrea L Focht1, Bonnie Martin-Harris2, Heather Shaw Bonilha1. 1. Department of Health Sciences and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2. Department of Health Sciences and Research, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC ; Evelyn Trammell Institute of Voice and Swallowing Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC ; Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A systematic review of the use of stroboscopy as a treatment outcome measure of vocal fold function in patients treated for laryngeal cancer is presented. METHODS: Computerized literature searches were performed. Eligible articles were admitted when stroboscopy was used to measure vocal fold function before and after treatment in patients with laryngeal cancer. Data extracted included: tumor stage and location, treatment modality, stroboscopy parameters, parameter scale, number of raters, rater reliability, methodology, and level of evidence. RESULTS: Of 520 articles retrieved, 11 studies met inclusion criteria. A total of twenty-four parameters were reported. Rating scales and rater reliability varied. DISCUSSION: Major methodological differences exist in studies using stroboscopic findings as voice outcome measures in patients' post-cancer treatment. These differences lead to equivocal findings when assessing the utility of stroboscopy as an outcome measure. Standardized, reliable scoring and reporting systems for laryngeal stroboscopic examinations are needed.
BACKGROUND: A systematic review of the use of stroboscopy as a treatment outcome measure of vocal fold function in patients treated for laryngeal cancer is presented. METHODS: Computerized literature searches were performed. Eligible articles were admitted when stroboscopy was used to measure vocal fold function before and after treatment in patients with laryngeal cancer. Data extracted included: tumor stage and location, treatment modality, stroboscopy parameters, parameter scale, number of raters, rater reliability, methodology, and level of evidence. RESULTS: Of 520 articles retrieved, 11 studies met inclusion criteria. A total of twenty-four parameters were reported. Rating scales and rater reliability varied. DISCUSSION: Major methodological differences exist in studies using stroboscopic findings as voice outcome measures in patients' post-cancer treatment. These differences lead to equivocal findings when assessing the utility of stroboscopy as an outcome measure. Standardized, reliable scoring and reporting systems for laryngeal stroboscopic examinations are needed.
Authors: P Daniel Knott; Claudio F Milstein; Douglas M Hicks; Tom I Abelson; Michael C Byrd; Marshall Strome Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2006-11
Authors: Christine D L van Gogh; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Brigitte A Boon-Kamma; Rico N P M Rinkel; M Diana de Bruin; Johannes A Langendijk; Dirk J Kuik; Hans F Mahieu Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ariel E Marciscano; Vivek Charu; Heather M Starmer; Simon R Best; Harry Quon; Alexander T Hillel; Lee M Akst; Ana P Kiess Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 6.244