European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
Consensus for voice quality assessment in clinical practice: guidelines of the European Laryngological Society and Union of the European Phoniatricians.
СтатьяConsensus StatementНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lechien Jerome R, Geneid Ahmed, Bohlender Jörg E, Cantarella Giovanna, Avellaneda Juan C, Desuter Gauthier, Sjogren Elisabeth V, Finck Camille, Hans Stephane, Hess Markus, Oguz Haldun, Remacle Marc J, Schneider-Stickler Berit, Tedla Miroslav, Schindler Antonio, Vilaseca Isabel, Zabrodsky Michal, Dikkers Frederik G, Crevier-Buchman Lise
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To update the European guidelines for the assessment of voice quality (VQ) in clinical practice.
METHODS: Nineteen laryngologists-phoniatricians of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) and the Union of the European Phoniatricians (UEP) participated to a modified Delphi process to propose statements about subjective and objective VQ assessments. Two anonymized voting rounds determined a consensus statement to be acceptable when 80% of experts agreed with a rating of at least 3/4. The statements with ≥ 3/4 score by 60-80% of experts were improved and resubmitted to voting until they were validated or rejected.
RESULTS: Of the 90 initial statements, 51 were validated after two voting rounds. A multidimensional set of minimal VQ evaluations was proposed and included: baseline VQ anamnesis (e.g., allergy, medical and surgical history, medication, addiction, singing practice, job, and posture), videolaryngostroboscopy (mucosal wave symmetry, amplitude, morphology, and movements), patient-reported VQ assessment (30- or 10-voice handicap index), perception (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain), aerodynamics (maximum phonation time), acoustics (Mean F0, Jitter, Shimmer, and noise-to-harmonic ratio), and clinical instruments associated with voice comorbidities (reflux symptom score, reflux sign assessment, eating-assessment tool-10, and dysphagia handicap index). For perception, aerodynamics and acoustics, experts provided guidelines for the methods of measurement. Some additional VQ evaluations are proposed for voice professionals or patients with some laryngeal diseases.
CONCLUSION: The ELS-UEP consensus for VQ assessment provides clinical statements for the baseline and pre- to post-treatment evaluations of VQ and to improve collaborative research by adopting common and validated VQ evaluation approach.
METHODS: Nineteen laryngologists-phoniatricians of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) and the Union of the European Phoniatricians (UEP) participated to a modified Delphi process to propose statements about subjective and objective VQ assessments. Two anonymized voting rounds determined a consensus statement to be acceptable when 80% of experts agreed with a rating of at least 3/4. The statements with ≥ 3/4 score by 60-80% of experts were improved and resubmitted to voting until they were validated or rejected.
RESULTS: Of the 90 initial statements, 51 were validated after two voting rounds. A multidimensional set of minimal VQ evaluations was proposed and included: baseline VQ anamnesis (e.g., allergy, medical and surgical history, medication, addiction, singing practice, job, and posture), videolaryngostroboscopy (mucosal wave symmetry, amplitude, morphology, and movements), patient-reported VQ assessment (30- or 10-voice handicap index), perception (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain), aerodynamics (maximum phonation time), acoustics (Mean F0, Jitter, Shimmer, and noise-to-harmonic ratio), and clinical instruments associated with voice comorbidities (reflux symptom score, reflux sign assessment, eating-assessment tool-10, and dysphagia handicap index). For perception, aerodynamics and acoustics, experts provided guidelines for the methods of measurement. Some additional VQ evaluations are proposed for voice professionals or patients with some laryngeal diseases.
CONCLUSION: The ELS-UEP consensus for VQ assessment provides clinical statements for the baseline and pre- to post-treatment evaluations of VQ and to improve collaborative research by adopting common and validated VQ evaluation approach.