ArticleThe Laryngoscope2014
Clinical application of the Provox NiD voice prosthesis: a longitudinal study.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Device Life of the Tracheoesophageal Voice Prosthesis Revisited.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisTo evaluate the indications, complications, and device life of the Provox NiD in a large cohort at a tertiary US cancer center. STUDY
designLongitudinal retrospective cohort study.
methodsWe reviewed the records of patients who used the NiD prosthesis (2005-2011) for general indicators, device life, and complications.
resultsOne hundred eighty-six patients who used the NiD were included (median follow-up: 21.4 months). The NiD was placed at initial fit in 41 (22%) patients, whereas 145 (78%) tried an NiD after using another type of prosthesis. Most patients used the NiD similarly to an indwelling device. Median NiD device life was significantly longer than that of other nonindwelling prostheses (45 vs. 29 days, P=.0061), and did not significantly differ from that of standard indwelling devices (45 vs. 50 days, P=.4263). Thirty-eight percent (71 of 189) of NiD users had a history of early leakage (<8 weeks) using a different prosthesis before trying the NiD. Among patients with a pre-existing history of early leakage, almost 90% of NiD prostheses outperformed the device life of other products.
conclusionsThe NiD prosthesis offers satisfactory device life on a par with indwelling prostheses in our cohort of NiD users. Coupled with favorable published airflow characteristics and satisfactory tracheoesophageal voice, these data suggest that the NiD offers a durable, low-cost prosthetic alternative in contemporary practice. A unique indication for NiD may be improved device life in some patients with a history of early leakage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.