ArticleDigital health
Delivering the Lee Silverman voice treatment-loud method in-site versus telerehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis: Feasibility evidence of a non-inferiority pilot randomized controlled trial.
Article in Digital health. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Telerehabilitation may overcome accessibility barriers related to the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT)-Loud for dysphonia rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis (MS). The present study provides the feasibility evidence on patient-relevant structural and procedure effects of a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing LSVT-Loud telerehabilitation (Tele-LSVT-Loud) versus standard delivery. Methods: Twenty-one people with MS (six males) with dysphonia were 1:1 randomly allocated to 4 weeks of LSVT-Loud in-site or Tele-LSVT-Loud at home accessing a telemedicine platform. The feasibility of Tele-LSVT-Loud compared to LSVT-Loud was evaluated considering adherence rate, safety (adverse events), technology interaction (User Experience Questionnaire), intrinsic motivation to the treatment (Intrinsic Motivation Inventory), and perceived rehabilitation experience (individual qualitative interviews) during and after the intervention program. Results: Thirty-one percent of eligible subjects were unavailable to follow in-site treatment. Drops-outs were higher in the LSVT-Loud than Tele-LSVT-Loud group (4 versus 1). Also, the adherence rate of synchronous sessions was 68.75% in the LSVT-Loud compared to 87.5% in the Tele-LSVT-Loud group, related to greater difficulty in integrating the treatment into a daily routine, as mentioned in the qualitative interview. No relevant adverse events were observed in both groups. The user experience with technology in the Tele-LSVT-Loud group was positive. The interviews revealed a positive therapeutic alliance, regardless of the delivery path. Interestingly, only people in the Tele-LSVT-Loud group judged equivalent the therapist-user relationship in in-site and telerehabilitation settings. Conclusions: Telerehabilitation promotes the feasibility of LSVT-Loud. The modality of delivery is a relevant factor in determining eligibility and adherence to a voice rehabilitation program in MS.
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.