Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov;32(6):734-755.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.09.018. Epub 2017 Nov 2.

Parameters and Scales Used to Assess and Report Findings From Stroboscopy: A Systematic Review

Heather Shaw Bonilha  1 , Maude Desjardins  2 , Kendrea L Garand  3 , Bonnie Martin-Harris  4
Affiliations

Parameters and Scales Used to Assess and Report Findings From Stroboscopy: A Systematic Review

Heather Shaw Bonilha et al. J Voice. 2018 Nov.

Abstract

Objective: Laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy, a critical component of the assessment of voice disorders, is rarely used as a treatment outcome measure in the scientific literature. We hypothesized that this is because of the lack of a widely used standardized, validated, and reliable method to assess and report laryngeal anatomy and physiology, and undertook a systematic literature review to determine the extent of the inconsistencies of the parameters and scales used in voice treatment outcome studies.

Study design: Systematic literature review.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane for studies where laryngeal endoscopy with stroboscopy was used as a treatment outcome measure with search terms representing "stroboscopy" and "treatment" guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards.

Results: In the 62 included articles, we identified 141 terms representing 49 different parameters, which were further classified into 20 broad categories. The six most common parameters were magnitude of glottal gap, mucosal wave amplitude, location or shape of glottal gap, regularity of vibration, phase symmetry, and presence and size of specific lesions. Parameters were assessed on scales ranging from binary to 100 points. The number of scales used for each parameter varied from 1 to 24, with an average of four different scales per parameter.

Conclusions: There is a lack of agreement in the scientific literature regarding which parameters should be assessed to measure voice treatment outcomes and which terms and scales should be used for each parameter. This greatly diminishes comparison and clinical implementation of the results of treatment outcomes research in voice disorders. We highlight a previously published tool and recommend it for future use in research and clinical settings.

Keywords: Outcomes; Rating; Standardization; Stroboscopy; Voice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flowchart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bonilha HS, Focht KL, Martin-Harris B. Rater methodology for stroboscopy: a systematic review. J Voice. 2015;29:101–108. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Behrman A. Common practices of voice therapists in the evaluation of patients. J Voice. 2005;19:454–469. - PubMed
    1. Poburka BJ, Patel RR, Bless DM. Voice-Vibratory Assessment With Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) form: reliability of rating stroboscopy and high-speed videoendoscopy. J Voice. 2016;31:513. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beaver ME, Stasney CR, Weitzel E, et al. Diagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease with digital imaging. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;128:103–108. - PubMed

Publication types