Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38986549›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

Catherine M Sackley, Caroline Rick, Marian C Brady, Rebecca Woolley, Christopher Burton, Smitaa Patel, Patricia Masterson-Algar, Avril Nicoll, Christina H Smith, Sue Jowett and 8 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Clinical diagnosis and treatment of pitch-related disorders].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Catherine M SackleySchool of Health Science, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Caroline RickNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, Nottingham, UK caroline.rick@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7713-9834
Marian C BradyNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Rebecca WoolleyBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Christopher BurtonSchool of Allied and Public Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK.
Smitaa PatelBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Patricia Masterson-AlgarSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Avril NicollNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Christina H SmithDivision of Psychology and Language Science, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Sue JowettHealth Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Natalie IvesBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Gillian BeatonQueen Elizabeth Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK.
Sylvia DicksonNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Ryan OttridgeBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Leslie Sharp
Helen NankervisSchool of Health Science, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Carl E ClarkeInstitute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
PD COMM collaborative group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease.

designPragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

settingThe speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020.

participants388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria.

interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index.

resultsPeople who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded.

conclusionsLSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy.

trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

Indexed as

DysarthriaLanguage TherapyParkinson DiseaseSpeech TherapyAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedState MedicineTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomVoice Training

Identifiers

PMID38986549
PMCPMC11232530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.