ArticleJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2025
Comparison of Voice Stimulability Testing in Telehealth and In-Person Formats.
Article in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTelehealth is a useful platform for behavioral voice evaluation and therapy and has been shown to be noninferior to in-person services. However, in the existing literature, therapy outcomes are only compared after a complete course of voice therapy. Voice stimulability testing is an important part of the behavioral voice evaluation and can guide treatment decisions, estimate prognosis for improvement, and facilitate the patient's readiness for change. It is unclear whether immediate changes that occur during stimulability testing differ between in-person and telehealth delivery models. This study examines whether stimulability ratings differ significantly between in-person and telehealth voice evaluations.
methodsCharts from 86 patients who underwent a voice evaluation via telehealth and 86 patients who participated in an in-person evaluation were reviewed. Telehealth and in-person patients were matched based on voice diagnosis (structural, functional, and neurological) and which clinician they saw. Chart review included documentation of age, diagnosis, clinician, degree of overall stimulability (low, medium, and high), and degree of stimulability to specific tasks. Multinomial logistic regression was completed to determine whether there were differences in stimulability levels between practice modalities when controlling for age.
resultsThe overall logistic regression model was not statistically significant (P = 0.091). There were no statistically significant differences in overall stimulability level between patients undergoing in-person evaluation and those who participated in telehealth evaluations, even when controlling for age.
conclusionsVoice stimulability testing can impact a clinician's therapeutic and prognostic decisions, so it is important that stimulability can be judged consistently across all treatment settings. The results from this study found that estimates of stimulability did not differ between telehealth and in-person modalities. These findings provide further support for the use of telehealth as a noninferior modality for voice therapy services.
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.