ArticleJournal of anesthesia2025
A hands-free wearable electrolarynx for communication in tracheostomized mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a case series.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The electrolarynx facilitates communication for tracheostomized mechanically ventilated patients. However, its effectiveness is often constrained by patient weakness. A hands-free electrolarynx offers a potential solution, enabling speech without the need to hold the device. This case series evaluated speech intelligibility with a hands-free electrolarynx in tracheostomized, mechanically ventilated patients. Seven tracheostomized patients were enrolled and instructed to use both the conventional and hands-free electrolarynxes. Speech intelligibility was assessed using the 5-point electrolarynx effectivity score (EES). Patients who scored ≥4 were defined as effective users. The median EES (interquartile range [IQR]) for the hands-free electrolarynx was 3.5 (2.5-4), with three effective users (42.9%). The median EES for the conventional electrolarynx when operated by the research staff was 4 (IQR: 3-4), with four effective users (57.1%), indicating no significant difference compared with the hands-free electrolarynx (p=0.7). However, none of the patients were able to effectively and independently utilize the conventional device, leading to a significantly lower median EES of 2 (IQR: 2-2.6; p = 0.03). The hands-free electrolarynx achieves greater intelligibility than the conventional electrolarynx when used independently by patients. The hands-free electrolarynx has the potential to minimize the need for external assistance and enhance autonomous communication.
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.