ArticleCoDAS2023
Comparison of efficiency of different self-assessment instruments for screening dysphonia.
Article in CoDAS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficiency of different vocal self-assessment instruments for dysphonia screening.
methods262 dysphonic and non-dysphonic individuals participated in the research. The mean age was 41.3 (±14.5) years. The diagnosis of dysphonia was based on the auditory-perceptual analysis of the sustained vowel "é" and on laryngological diagnosis. The responses of the instruments were collected: Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL), Voice Handicap Index (VHI), VHI-10, Voice Symptoms Scale (VoiSS), and the Brazilian Dysphonia Screening Tool, (Br-DST) called in Brazilian Portuguese Instrumento de Rastreio da Disfonia (IRDBR). To analyze assertiveness in relation to the presence of dysphonia, the cutoff points of each instrument and the decision rule recommended by the IRDBR were used. An exploratory analysis was performed to compare mean scores of instruments and verify associations between variables.
resultsThe instruments evaluated were sensitive to capture the impact of dysphonia in a similar way regardless of professional voice use and type of dysphonia. There was a difference only in VoiSS scores for the variable gender, with a higher score for females. Regarding global assertiveness, the instruments showed high rates of success in classification, with emphasis on the VoiSS, which had the highest rate (86.3%), followed by the IRDBR (84.0%), VQL (80.9%), VHI (78.2%), and VHI-10 (75.2%).
conclusionThe VoiSS has the highest assertiveness index in the identification of dysphonia, followed by the IRDBR. The IRDBR is a short, simple, and easy-to-apply tool for screening procedures.
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.