PURPOSE: In this article, our goal was to determine the state of the evidence and the effect of speech-language pathology (SLP) treatment for individuals with paradoxical vocal fold motion (PVFM). METHOD: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders searched 22 electronic databases using key words related to PVFM, speech or voice treatment, and behavioral intervention for articles published through July 2013. Identified articles were systematically evaluated to assess the quality of the evidence using a modification of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's critical appraisal scheme. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles met the search criteria. Only 2 out of the 65 articles were judged to contain adequate evidence to evaluate the effect of SLP treatment for PVFM. All 65 articles exemplify the state of the evidence for SLP treatment for PVFM. CONCLUSION: The state of the evidence for the use of SLP treatment is in its infancy, with a majority of articles in the exploratory stage of research. Consequently, few clinical implications can be drawn at this time. SLP treatment for PVFM is promising; however, there is clearly a pressing need for systematic experimental studies that involve a control group to further the evidence base.
PURPOSE: In this article, our goal was to determine the state of the evidence and the effect of speech-language pathology (SLP) treatment for individuals with paradoxical vocal fold motion (PVFM). METHOD: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's National Center for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders searched 22 electronic databases using key words related to PVFM, speech or voice treatment, and behavioral intervention for articles published through July 2013. Identified articles were systematically evaluated to assess the quality of the evidence using a modification of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's critical appraisal scheme. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles met the search criteria. Only 2 out of the 65 articles were judged to contain adequate evidence to evaluate the effect of SLP treatment for PVFM. All 65 articles exemplify the state of the evidence for SLP treatment for PVFM. CONCLUSION: The state of the evidence for the use of SLP treatment is in its infancy, with a majority of articles in the exploratory stage of research. Consequently, few clinical implications can be drawn at this time. SLP treatment for PVFM is promising; however, there is clearly a pressing need for systematic experimental studies that involve a control group to further the evidence base.
Authors: Emil S Walsted; Azmy Faisal; Caroline J Jolley; Laura L Swanton; Matthew J Pavitt; Yuan-Ming Luo; Vibeke Backer; Michael I Polkey; James H Hull Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-11-02
Authors: Jemma Haines; Jacklyn Ann Smith; James Wingfield-Digby; Jenny King; Janelle Yorke; Stephen J Fowler Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2022-06
Authors: Carolyn K Novaleski; Richard L Doty; Alissa A Nolden; Paul M Wise; Joel D Mainland; Pamela H Dalton Journal: J Voice Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 2.300