A Scoping Review to Map Health Outcomes in Inducible Laryngeal Obstruction.
S F Ludlow, L J Holmes, L Simpson and 2 others
PMID 41408678WHAT IT FOUND
Across 49 studies on inducible laryngeal obstruction, outcome measures varied widely with no standard set.
Patient-reported questionnaires dominated, but few captured environmental or personal factors. Current tools miss key life impacts, so results cannot be reliably compared across studies.
Key findings
01The review included 49 primary studies, with most being observational or retrospective designs.
02Patient-reported outcomes were used in 97% of studies, while observer-reported outcomes were used in only 4%.
03Personal and environmental factors were measured in less than half of the studies, leaving gaps in understanding life impact.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The scoping review design did not assess the risk of bias or methodological quality of the 49 included studies. Many studies used custom-developed surveys that were not available for review, making it difficult to determine if they fully covered the WHO framework domains. The search was limited to English-language publications and full-text availability, which may have excluded relevant international studies. Terminology for inducible laryngeal obstruction was not standardized until 2017, so earlier studies may have been missed or misclassified despite search strategies attempting to account for this.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the variability in outcome measures as evidence that treatments are ineffective. The lack of standardized tools means studies cannot be compared directly, so the absence of consistent positive findings reflects measurement gaps rather than a failure of clinical intervention.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →