ArticleNeurospine2025
Incidence of Hoarseness After General Spine Surgery: Interim Report of Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Neurospine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHoarseness can occur after spinal surgery under general anesthesia, which has been assessed through self-report measures based on questionnaires. Given the inherent biases associated with self-report instruments, there is a need for more objective measures to assess hoarseness.
methodsSingle institute, a prospective observational study was planned to include 427 patients after spine surgery. This interim analysis was planned to include 215 patients who met the inclusion criteria. All subjects included in this study submitted a questionnaire of Korean Voice Handicap Index (KVHI)-10. Voice analysis including low or high pitch (Herz), frequency variation rate (jitter), amplitude variation rate (Shimmer), and noise-to-harmonic ratio (NHR) was performed with a software of Pratt.
resultsThis interim report enrolled a total of 215 patients who met the inclusion criteria, and among them, 162 patients (75.5%) were subjected to interim analysis after excluding those with data loss (8 patients), operation cancellation (3 patients), and loss to follow-up (42 patients). The incidence of hoarseness was 35.0% on postoperative day (POD)0 and 5.5% on POD30. In the acoustic parameters analyzed, hertz and jitter were significantly positively correlated with the KVHI-10 scores on POD0, while only the jitter value significantly correlated with POD30. The optimal cutoff values of the acoustic parameter on POD30 from the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.65% in jitter, 4.67% in shimmer, and 16.96 dB in NHR.
conclusionThis study revealed a correlation between objective acoustic parameters obtained from voice analysis and subjective questionnaire scores for hoarseness.
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.