Trial reportThe Laryngoscope2024
Clinical Voice Outcomes for Two Voice Rest Protocols after Phonomicrosurgery.
Trial report in The Laryngoscope, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Report Versus Instrumental Measurement of Voice Use During Postsurgical Voice Rest.The Laryngoscope · 2026Trial
- Exploring the Correlation Between Surgical Depth and Postoperative Voice Rest Duration in a Rabbit Phonomicrosurgery Model.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2026Article
- Early Insights Into the Role of Personality in Adherence to Voice Rest After Phonomicrosurgery.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesVoice rest is commonly recommended for patients with benign vocal fold lesions (BVFLs) after phonomicrosurgery. The study compares the clinical voice outcomes of two protocols, 7-day complete voice rest (CVR) and 3-day CVR followed by 4-day relative voice rest (CVR + RVR), for patients with BVFLs after phonomicrosurgery. STUDY
designProspective, randomized controlled trial.
methodPatients with BVFLs undergoing phonomicrosurgery were recruited prospectively and randomly assigned to either protocol. Outcomes were assessed on objective measures of acoustics (fundamental frequency, frequency range, mean intensity, cepstral peak analysis) and aerodynamics (vital capacity, airflow rate, subglottal pressure, phonation threshold pressure), as well as subjective measures, both provider-reported through the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), and patient-reported through the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Clinical measures were collected at three-time points: preoperatively, 1-week postoperatively (on voice rest), and 1-month postoperatively. In addition, adherence was estimated using a vocal dosimeter.
resultsTwenty-five patients were recruited and randomized to 7-day CVR (n = 13) and CVR + RVR regimen (n = 12). Statistically significant changes were found within both groups for subglottal pressure (p = 0.03) and VHI score (p < 0.001) comparing pre-operative baseline to 1-month postoperative follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Regardless of group assignment, a significant decrease in overall severity ratings for the CAPE-V was found by comparing the preoperative scores to postoperative scores at 1-week (p < 0.001) and 1-month (p < 0.001).
conclusionBoth groups improved their overall voice quality comparably 1 month after undergoing phonomicrosurgery as measured by objective and subjective parameters. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 2. Laryngoscope, 134:2812-2818, 2024.
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.