ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
The Impact of Protective Face Coverings on Acoustic Markers in Voice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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.
- Gaps and Future Directions in the Research About Masking and Voice Production: Bibliometric Analysis, Systematic Literature Review, and Meta-analysis.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2026Review
- Effects of face protector devices on acoustic parameters of voice.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2024Article
- The impact of face masks on face-to-face neural tracking of speech: Auditory and visual obstacles.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWearing respiratory protective masks (RPMs) has become common worldwide, especially in healthcare settings, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hypotheses have suggested that sound transmission could be limited by RPMs, which possibly affects the characteristics of acoustic energy and speech intelligibility. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of RPMs on acoustic measurements through a systematic review with meta-analysis.
methodsFive database searches were conducted, ranging from their inception to August 2023, as well as a manual search. Cross-sectional studies were included that provided data on widely used gender-independent clinical acoustic voice quality measures (jitter, shimmer, HNR, CPPS, and AVQI) and habitual sound pressure level (SPL).
resultsWe found nine eligible research studies with a total of 422 participants who were compared both without masks and with different types of masks. All included studies focused on individuals with vocally healthy voices, while two of the studies also included those with voice disorders. The results from the meta-analysis were related to medical/surgical and FFP2/(K)N95 masks. None of the acoustic measurements showed significant differences between the absence and presence of masks (
conclusionsThe present meta-analysis indicates that certain types of RPMs have no significant influence on common voice quality parameters and SPL compared to recordings without masks. Nevertheless, it is plausible that significant differences in acoustic parameters might exist between different mask types. Consequently, it is advisable for the clinical practice to always use the same mask type when using RPMs to ensure high comparability and accuracy of measurement results.
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.