ArticleMedicine2026
Effect of speaking valve use on decannulation in tracheostomized patients.
Article in Medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of speaking valve use, in addition to routine treatment and rehabilitation, on decannulation outcomes and related physiological functions in tracheostomized patients. This retrospective cohort study included adult inpatients who underwent tracheostomy from January 2023 to September 2025. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether they used a speaking valve. Propensity score matching was applied to control confounding factors, and 80 patients were ultimately included (40 in each group). Baseline data, primary outcomes (decannulation time, success rate, and 72-hour reintubation rate), and secondary outcomes (swallowing function, airway protection, diaphragmatic function, and respiratory physiological parameters) were collected. After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups (all P > .05). The speaking valve group had a shorter time to decannulation than the nonspeaking valve group (15.5 [11.0-21.0] days vs 21.0 [16.0-28.5] days; unadjusted P = .008, Bonferroni-adjusted P = .024). The speaking valve group also showed a numerically higher successful decannulation rate (85.0% vs 62.5%; unadjusted P = .034, adjusted P = .102) and a numerically lower 72-hour reintubation rate (7.5% vs 25.0%; unadjusted P = .041, adjusted P = .123), although these differences did not remain statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Secondary outcomes showed that the speaking valve group demonstrated greater improvements in swallowing function, airway protection, diaphragmatic function, and respiratory physiological parameters. In tracheostomized patients, speaking valve use was associated with a shorter time to decannulation and improvements in swallowing function, airway protection, diaphragmatic function, and respiratory physiology. Favorable numerical trends were also observed in successful decannulation and 72-hour reintubation rates, although these differences were not statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Prospective randomized studies are needed to confirm whether speaking valve use improves these clinical outcomes.
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.