Ben Barsties V Latoszek1,2, Nora Ulozaitė-Stanienė3, Tadas Petrauskas3, Virgilijus Uloza3, Youri Maryn1,4,5,6. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp. 2. Institute of Health Studies, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Otolaryngology of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 4. European Institute for ORL, Sint-Augustinus Hospital, Antwerp. 5. Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Ghent University. 6. Faculty of Education, Health and Social Work, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) and the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) have been successfully investigated to quantify voice quality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both measurements in comparison with the dysphonia classification. METHODS: In total, 264 subjects with vocally healthy voices (n = 105) and with various voice disorders (n = 159) were included in the study. To determine the dysphonia classification, all subjects underwent a videolaryngostroboscopy and, if necessary, a direct microlaryngoscopy plus a clinical examination to diagnose a voice disorder. Patients with a vocally healthy voice had no actual voice complaints, no history of chronic laryngeal diseases or voice disorders, no hearing problems and were determined as healthy voices by clinical voice specialists. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, receiver operating characteristic statistics and correct classification rate (CCR) were used. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of DSI and AVQI showed strong sensitivity and specificity in the determination of dysphonia classification. A DSI threshold of 3.05 obtained a high sensitivity of 94.3% and specificity of 84.3%. An CCR of 88% was determined for DSI. Also, an AVQI threshold of 3.31 showed reasonable sensitivity of 71.7% and specificity of 88%. The CCR for AVQI was 79%. CONCLUSION: Although DSI and AVQI were developed to quantify voice quality, the present results showed that both measurements can evaluate the dysphonia classification as well. Particularly, the DSI might have higher potential in the evaluation of dysphonia classification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C Laryngoscope, 129:692-698, 2019.
OBJECTIVE: The Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) and the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) have been successfully investigated to quantify voice quality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both measurements in comparison with the dysphonia classification. METHODS: In total, 264 subjects with vocally healthy voices (n = 105) and with various voice disorders (n = 159) were included in the study. To determine the dysphonia classification, all subjects underwent a videolaryngostroboscopy and, if necessary, a direct microlaryngoscopy plus a clinical examination to diagnose a voice disorder. Patients with a vocally healthy voice had no actual voice complaints, no history of chronic laryngeal diseases or voice disorders, no hearing problems and were determined as healthy voices by clinical voice specialists. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, receiver operating characteristic statistics and correct classification rate (CCR) were used. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of DSI and AVQI showed strong sensitivity and specificity in the determination of dysphonia classification. A DSI threshold of 3.05 obtained a high sensitivity of 94.3% and specificity of 84.3%. An CCR of 88% was determined for DSI. Also, an AVQI threshold of 3.31 showed reasonable sensitivity of 71.7% and specificity of 88%. The CCR for AVQI was 79%. CONCLUSION: Although DSI and AVQI were developed to quantify voice quality, the present results showed that both measurements can evaluate the dysphonia classification as well. Particularly, the DSI might have higher potential in the evaluation of dysphonia classification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C Laryngoscope, 129:692-698, 2019.
Authors: Constanze Müller; Felix Caffier; Tadeus Nawka; Matthias Müller; Philipp P Caffier Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 3.411