Observational studyArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2022
Determining the Prevalence, Implementation Approaches, and Opinions of Above Cuff Vocalization: A Survey of Health Care Professionals.
Observational study in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Above Cuff Vocalization for Patients with Tracheostomy: An Evidence Informed, Interprofessional Practice Guidance (2026).Tracheostomy (Warrenville, Ill.) · 2026Article
- An Early-Stage Decision-Analytic Health Economic Model of Above Cuff Vocalization: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Resolve?Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Mathematical modelling of the airflow in the subglottic space during above cuff vocalisation: Estimating optimal airflow application.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Troubleshooting above cuff vocalisation.Intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- What's new in reducing the impact of tracheostomy on communication and swallowing in the ICU.Intensive care medicine · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct an international survey to investigate the use of above cuff vocalization (ACV) and how practice and opinion differs.
designObservational, cross-sectional online survey.
settingCritical care, acute, rehabilitation, long-term care, and community.
participantsHealth care professionals involved in tracheostomy care or weaning (N=243).
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresTracheostomy management, prevalence, personal experiences and opinions, and barriers to use. Quantitative data were reported descriptively, and content analysis was conducted with qualitative data.
resultsThe survey was completed by 243 health care professionals from 9 professional groups and 25 countries, with most responses from the United Kingdom (54%) and speech and language therapists (55%). ACV was used in 39% of services (n=93). Sixty percent (n=50/83) of health care professionals with direct experience of ACV had used it with <10 people. Implementation of ACV varied widely concerning procedures, contraindications, safety processes, professionals involved, competencies, staff training, delivery, and outcome measures. The top benefits were communication (n=76/93; 82%), mood (n=62/93; 67%), and laryngeal sensation (n=49/93; 53%). Complications included discomfort (n=54/93; 58%) and strained vocal quality (n=39/93; 42%). Barriers to ACV implementation included lack of knowledgeable staff (n=92/238; 39%) and lack of access to training (n=73/238; 31%).
conclusionsACV uptake varies internationally with no standardized approach to ACV delivery. Diversity of opinions on approaches and benefits exist. Serious complications are infrequent, but minor complications are common. Future research is needed to establish optimal ACV implementation to maximize benefits and minimize risks.
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.