ReviewJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2026
Gaps and Future Directions in the Research About Masking and Voice Production: Bibliometric Analysis, Systematic Literature Review, and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile facemasks have played a vital role in mitigating the spread of infectious diseases, their prolonged use has raised questions about their potential effects on voice production and communication.
methodsThe present study integrated three complementary methodological approaches with three specific aims. First, to identify trends in research on facemasks and voice production, including thematic clusters and patterns, using bibliometric methods. Second, critically appraise and synthesize findings from primary research studies on the effects of facemask use on voice-related outcomes through a systematic literature review. Third, to determine the pooled effects of facemask use on selected vocal outcomes, where data allow, using meta-analysis.
resultsIn total, 48 publications were included in this review. The term co-occurrence network map generated with VOSviewer showed three clusters: voice-related consequences of mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of protective equipment on speech acoustics and intelligibility, and acoustic markers of voice quality in healthy speakers. The overlay visualization map showed that earlier studies emphasized the subjective assessment of the relationship between facemasks and voice production. In contrast, more recent publications reflect a growing interest in the instrumental assessment of the relationship. Most studies based their results on voice acoustic analysis, followed by questionnaires and aerodynamic assessment. The results suggested no significant differences in fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and maximum phonation time. The results on vocal effort and sound pressure levels are inconsistent. The meta-analysis suggested that facemasks cause a small increase in SPL, but the effect was not statistically significant.
conclusionFacemasks create complex communication challenges that extend beyond acoustic changes to encompass multimodal perception disruption and disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations. While acoustic measurements show minimal direct effects, the elimination of visual speech cues and facial expression recognition may create substantial barriers for individuals with hearing impairments, developmental disabilities, and age-related communication difficulties.
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.