Trial reportAdvances in therapy2018
Efficacy of Phonosurgery, Logopedic Voice Treatment and Vocal Pedagogy in Common Voice Problems of Singers.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Harnessing Machine Learning in Vocal Arts Medicine: A Random Forest Application for "Fach" Classification in Opera.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- New objective timbre parameters for classification of voice type and fach in professional opera singers.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Monitoring the Outcome of Phonosurgery and Vocal Exercises with Established and New Diagnostic Tools.BioMed research international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFunctional and organic impairments of the singing voice are common career-threatening problems of singers presenting in phoniatric and laryngological departments. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of phonosurgery, logopedic voice treatment and vocal pedagogy in common organic and functional voice problems of singers, including investigation of the recently introduced parameter vocal extent measure (VEM).
methodsIn a prospective clinical study, the analysis of treatment outcome in 76 singers [57 female, 19 male; 38 ± 11 years (mean ± SD)] was based on pre- and post-therapeutic voice function diagnostics and videolaryngostroboscopy. Examination instruments included auditory-perceptual voice assessment, voice range profile (VRP), the VEM calculated from area and shape of the VRP, acoustic-aerodynamic analysis, and patients' self-assessment (e.g., Singing Voice Handicap Index).
resultsWhile 28% of all singers (21/76) presented with functional dysphonia, 72% (55/76) were diagnosed with organic vocal fold changes, of which marginal edema (n = 25), nodules (n = 9), and polyps (n = 8) were the most common pathologic changes. Of the 76 singers, 57% (43) received phonosurgery, 43% (33) had conservative pedagogic (14) and logopedic (19) treatment. Three months post-therapeutically, most parameters had significantly improved. The dysphonia severity index (DSI) increased on average from 6.1 ± 2.0 to 7.4 ± 1.8 (p < 0.001), and the VEM from 113 ± 20 to 124 ± 14 (p < 0.001). Both parameters correlated significantly with each other (r
conclusionsDepending on individual medical indication, phonosurgery, logopedic treatment and voice teaching are all effective, objectively and subjectively satisfactory therapies to improve the impaired singing voice. The use of VEM in singers with functional and organic dysphonia objectifies and quantifies their vocal capacity as documented in the VRP. Complementing the established DSI, VEM introduction into practical objective voice diagnostics is appropriate and desirable especially for the treatment of singers.
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.