Heather Shaw Bonilha1, Maude Desjardins2, Kendrea L Garand3, Bonnie Martin-Harris4. 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. 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 Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama. 4. 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; Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Electronic address: bonilhah@musc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy, a critical component of the assessment of voice disorders, is rarely used as a treatment outcome measure in the scientific literature. We hypothesized that this is because of the lack of a widely used standardized, validated, and reliable method to assess and report laryngeal anatomy and physiology, and undertook a systematic literature review to determine the extent of the inconsistencies of the parameters and scales used in voice treatment outcome studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane for studies where laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy was used as a treatment outcome measure with search terms representing "stroboscopy" and "treatment" guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. RESULTS: In the 62 included articles, we identified 141 terms representing 49 different parameters, which were further classified into 20 broad categories. The six most common parameters were magnitude of glottal gap, mucosal wave amplitude, location or shape of glottal gap, regularity of vibration, phase symmetry, and presence and size of specific lesions. Parameters were assessed on scales ranging from binary to 100 points. The number of scales used for each parameter varied from 1 to 24, with an average of four different scales per parameter. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of agreement in the scientific literature regarding which parameters should be assessed to measure voice treatment outcomes and which terms and scales should be used for each parameter. This greatly diminishes comparison and clinical implementation of the results of treatment outcomes research in voice disorders. We highlight a previously published tool and recommend it for future use in research and clinical settings.
OBJECTIVE: Laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy, a critical component of the assessment of voice disorders, is rarely used as a treatment outcome measure in the scientific literature. We hypothesized that this is because of the lack of a widely used standardized, validated, and reliable method to assess and report laryngeal anatomy and physiology, and undertook a systematic literature review to determine the extent of the inconsistencies of the parameters and scales used in voice treatment outcome studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane for studies where laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy was used as a treatment outcome measure with search terms representing "stroboscopy" and "treatment" guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. RESULTS: In the 62 included articles, we identified 141 terms representing 49 different parameters, which were further classified into 20 broad categories. The six most common parameters were magnitude of glottal gap, mucosal wave amplitude, location or shape of glottal gap, regularity of vibration, phase symmetry, and presence and size of specific lesions. Parameters were assessed on scales ranging from binary to 100 points. The number of scales used for each parameter varied from 1 to 24, with an average of four different scales per parameter. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of agreement in the scientific literature regarding which parameters should be assessed to measure voice treatment outcomes and which terms and scales should be used for each parameter. This greatly diminishes comparison and clinical implementation of the results of treatment outcomes research in voice disorders. We highlight a previously published tool and recommend it for future use in research and clinical settings.
Authors: Robert R Lorenz; Ramon M Esclamado; Aysenur M Teker; Marshall Strome; Joseph Scharpf; Douglas Hicks; Claudio Milstein; Walter T Lee Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: Walter T Lee; Claudio Milstein; Douglas Hicks; Lee M Akst; Ramon M Esclamado Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Justin E Morgan; Richard I Zraick; Allison W Griffin; Travis L Bowen; Felicia L Johnson Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.325