ArticleScientific reports2025
The impact of synkinesis on voice restoration in idiopathic vocal fold paralysis patients with different disease courses.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the impact of synkinesis on voice restoration in idiopathic vocal fold paralysis (IVFP) patients with different disease courses, a cohort of 130 IVFP patients (comprising 71 males and 59 females; 78 cases with left-sided paralysis and 52 cases with right-sided paralysis) was categorized into two groups according to their disease courses (group 1: < 3 months, group 2: 3-6 months). Each group was subsequently subdivided based on the presence or absence of synkinesis according to the laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) results, as evaluated by two physicians who are board-certified in electrodiagnostic medicine. The specific information of the IVFP patients were blinded to both the two evaluators, and the LEMG results evaluated by them were also blinded to each other. Then the analysis revealed that the individuals in the group 2 (45 cases) demonstrated significantly greater maximum phonation time (MPT) and maximum sound pressure level (SPL
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.