ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2016
Dysphonia risk screening protocol.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement properties of self-report questionnaires on health-related quality of life and functional health status in dysphonia: a systematic review using the COSMIN taxonomy.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019Pooled it
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability of the Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol-General for Turkish-Speaking Individuals.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparison of efficiency of different self-assessment instruments for screening dysphonia.CoDAS · 2023Article
- Observational
- Cut-off point for high dysphonia risk in children based on the Child Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol: preliminary findings.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2020Article
- Voice deviation, dysphonia risk screening and quality of life in individuals with various laryngeal diagnoses.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2018Article
- Analysis of possible factors of vocal interference during the teaching activity.Revista de saude publica · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo propose and test the applicability of a dysphonia risk screening protocol with score calculation in individuals with and without dysphonia.
methodThis descriptive cross-sectional study included 365 individuals (41 children, 142 adult women, 91 adult men and 91 seniors) divided into a dysphonic group and a non-dysphonic group. The protocol consisted of 18 questions and a score was calculated using a 10-cm visual analog scale. The measured value on the visual analog scale was added to the overall score, along with other partial scores. Speech samples allowed for analysis/assessment of the overall degree of vocal deviation and initial definition of the respective groups and after six months, the separation of the groups was confirmed using an acoustic analysis.
resultsThe mean total scores were different between the groups in all samples. Values ranged between 37.0 and 57.85 in the dysphonic group and between 12.95 and 19.28 in the non-dysphonic group, with overall means of 46.09 and 15.55, respectively. High sensitivity and specificity were demonstrated when discriminating between the groups with the following cut-off points: 22.50 (children), 29.25 (adult women), 22.75 (adult men), and 27.10 (seniors).
conclusionThe protocol demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating groups of individuals with and without dysphonia in different sample groups and is thus an effective instrument for use in voice clinics.
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.