Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515514›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2018

Individualized Patient Vocal Priorities for Tailored Therapy.

Ingo R Titze, Tobias Riede, Anil Palaparthi, Linda S Hynan, Amy Hamilton, Laura Toles, Ted Mau

Open access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ingo R TitzeNational Center for Voice and Speech, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Tobias RiedeDepartment of Physiology, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ.
Anil PalaparthiNational Center for Voice and Speech, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Linda S HynanDepartments of Clinical Sciences and Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Amy HamiltonClinical Center for Voice Care, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Laura TolesClinical Center for Voice Care, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Ted MauClinical Center for Voice Care, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Southwestern Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Utah · USMidwestern University · US

Funding

An Optimizer-Simulator for PhonosurgeryR01DC014538 · NIDCD · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI MAU, I-FAN THEODORE · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purposes of this study are to introduce the concept of vocal priorities based on acoustic correlates, to develop an instrument to determine these vocal priorities, and to analyze the pattern of vocal priorities in patients with voice disorders. Method: Questions probing the importance of 5 vocal attributes (vocal clarity, loudness, mean speaking pitch, pitch range, vocal endurance) were generated from consensus conference involving speech-language pathologists, laryngologists, and voice scientists, as well as patient feedback. The responses to the preliminary items from 213 subjects were subjected to exploratory factor analysis, which confirmed 4 of the predefined domains. The final instrument consisted of a 16-item Vocal Priority Questionnaire probing the relative importance of clarity, loudness, mean speaking pitch, and pitch range. Results: The Vocal Priority Questionnaire had high reliability (Cronbach's α = .824) and good construct validity. A majority of the cohort (61%) ranked vocal clarity as their highest vocal priority, and 20%, 12%, and 7% ranked loudness, mean speaking pitch, and pitch range, respectively, as their highest priority. The frequencies of the highest ranked priorities did not differ by voice diagnosis or by sex. Considerable individual variation in vocal priorities existed within these large trends. Conclusions: A patient's vocal priorities can be identified and taken into consideration in planning behavioral or surgical intervention for a voice disorder. Inclusion of vocal priorities in treatment planning empowers the patient in shared decision making, helps the clinician tailor treatment, and may also improve therapy compliance.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansLoudness PerceptionMaleMiddle AgedPrecision MedicineReproducibility of ResultsSpeech AcousticsSpeech Production MeasurementSpeech TherapySurveys and QuestionnairesVoice DisordersVoice Quality

Identifiers

PMID30515514
PMCPMC6440314
OpenAlexW2903470303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.