Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 143
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 143
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 209
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 994
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3134
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 574
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 488
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Following total laryngectomy, surgical voice restoration is considered the optimal modality for re-establishing communication via tracheoesophageal voice. Yet beyond the insertion of a voice prosthesis to elicit voice production, there is suboptimal clinical knowledge of how to rehabilitate the perceptual quality of tracheoesophageal voice. This systematic review will identify and critically evaluate the quality and effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for tracheoesophageal voice. The findings of this review will inform the development of a novel tracheoesophageal voice therapy intervention.
Study Design: Systematic literature review carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
Methods: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Eight electronic databases were searched using a prespecified search strategy. Records were independently screened by two reviewers against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using the PEDro, ROBIN-T, and NHLBI critical appraisal tools. Data was extracted pertaining to participant characteristics and the content, dosage, intensity and outcomes of interventions.
Results: 6344 records were identified, of which 38 were included for full-text review. Six studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Voice rehabilitation was not the primary focus in the majority of studies, and the risk of bias was identified across studies. There was significant heterogeneity in the interventions and outcome measures used within studies with insufficient detail provided on intervention content for tracheoesophageal voice. Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions was limited and inconsistent across studies.
Conclusions: This review found that tracheoesophageal voice therapy is an under-researched area of clinical practice. Evidence from the small body of existing studies was not sufficiently robust to inform clinical practice at this time. This review highlights the necessity to develop and test interventions aimed at improving the perceptual quality of tracheoesophageal voice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2023.10.033 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!