ArticleCoDAS2026
Screening and analysis of the risk of dysphonia based on general and specific screening protocols in teachers with and without voice disorders.
Article in CoDAS, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the risk of dysphonia in teachers with and without voice disorders, compare the scores of the screening protocols, and correlate the risks with the overall severity of voice disorder.
methodsTeachers from different education levels and institutions, of both sexes, aged over 18 years, participated in the study. The study applied the General Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol (PRRD-G) and the Specific Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol for Teachers (PRRD-Pro) and recorded and analyzed voice samples. Participants were divided into two groups, with and without voice disorders, based on the mean overall severity in the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Descriptive analyses and comparisons of the protocol data between the groups were performed.
resultsThe groups were homogeneous regarding sex and age. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in PRRD-G, PRRD-Pro, and total scores. The smoking subscore was worse in the group with voice disorders, and hydration was worse in the group without disorders. There was no correlation between the overall severity and the protocol scores.
conclusionThe mean PRRD-G scores were above the cutoff in both groups, indicating a high risk of dysphonia, even in the absence of voice disorders. Smoking and hydration were relevant in differentiating between teachers with and without voice disorders. The study is planned to continue with a larger sample size, laryngological examination, observation of voice and communication in the classroom, vocal improvement workshops, and speech therapy.
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.