ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2025
Pre- and Postoperative Voice Therapy for Benign Vocal Fold Lesions: An International Electronic Delphi Consensus Study.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Voice Outcomes for Two Voice Rest Protocols after Phonomicrosurgery.The Laryngoscope · 2024Trial
- Pre- and post-operative voice therapy for benign vocal fold lesions: protocol for a non-randomised, multicentre feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Steroid Injection in Patients With Benign Vocal Fold Lesions: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.OTO openReview
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVoice therapy management of benign vocal fold lesions (BVFLs) is variable and there are currently no clinical guidelines. Poor descriptions of voice therapy interventions lead to unwarranted variation in treatment. Triangulation of the current evidence identifies a number of potential best practice elements, but also a number of outstanding questions to be explored. The aim of this study was to refine and gain global consensus on "best practice" for a pre- and postoperative voice therapy intervention for adults with BVFLs.
methodsAn international sample of expert voice therapists (n = 42) were recruited to take part in this three-round electronic modified Delphi study. Participants were presented with statements concerning a pre- and postoperative voice therapy intervention. Statements were developed from previous research and based on the TIDieR checklist (eg, why, when, what, how?) Participants rated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a statement and gave comments to support their response. Consensus was defined as >75% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with a given statement. If consensus was not reached, participant comments were used to generate new statements and were rated in the next round. Stability of consensus between rounds was assessed.
resultsThe 42 international experts achieved consensus on 33 statements relating to components of a best practice pre- and postoperative voice therapy intervention for patients with BVFLs. Consensus on statements ranged from 81% to 100%. These statements were explicitly mapped to the TIDieR checklist to ensure that all aspects of the intervention were considered and the questions of "why, what, how, when and individual tailoring" were addressed.
conclusionsThis study has significantly enhanced our understanding of what should be in a best practice pre- and postoperative voice therapy intervention. It is important to now test these findings for acceptability and feasibility, prior to considering effectiveness research.
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.