SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Prevalence of voice disorders in military personnel: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Voice and related laryngeal disorders may affect communication, occupational functioning and readiness in military populations, but their prevalence remains poorly characterized. We estimated prevalence across general military populations, high-vocal-demand personnel and chemically exposed military or veteran cohorts. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were searched in September 2024. Eligible studies included active-duty personnel, recruits, reservists or veterans and reported voice or related laryngeal outcomes. Clinically referred or symptom-selected cohorts were synthesized narratively. Subgroup-specific random-effects meta-analyses used logit-transformed proportions, restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Prediction intervals and generalized linear mixed-model sensitivity analyses were calculated. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using design-appropriate appraisal tools and GRADE. Results: Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review, and 11 independent datasets from nine studies contributed to the meta-analysis. In general military populations, pooled prevalence was 3.3% (95% CI 0.2-37.5%; five datasets; Conclusions: Reported prevalence varies substantially across military populations and exposure contexts. Because heterogeneity was high and the certainty of evidence was Very Low, the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution and should not be considered precise prevalence figures or evidence of causation. Standardized prospective studies are needed to quantify the occupational-health burden and evaluate targeted surveillance, prevention and early-referral approaches. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250640753, identifier: CRD420250640753.
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.