Accuracy and cut-off values of different acoustic measures in the sustained vowel task of Brazilian Portuguese speakers.
Amanda Feliciano, Mara Behlau, Jordana Balbinot and 3 others
PMID 42454832WHAT IT FOUND
Six measures taken from a held 'a' sound separated Brazilian Portuguese speakers with voice disorders from those without.
The noise measure SNL 100-3000Hz was the best balanced; the others are better kept for screening or for confirming a suspicion.
Key findings
01Six measures correctly picked out more than 70% of people with a voice disorder and correctly cleared more than 70% of people without one: AVI, GNE 2000Hz, SNL 100-2600Hz, SNL 100-3000Hz, SNL 100-8000Hz and SNL 5100-8000Hz.
02Ten measures found more than 70% of disordered voices but cleared far fewer healthy ones, which the authors say suits screening rather than diagnosis: GNE 1000Hz, HNR, LNPSD, PA, PSD, shimmer APQ5, shimmer APQ11, shimmer dB, shimmer local and SNL 100-5100Hz.
03Seven measures cleared more than 70% of healthy voices but missed many disordered ones, which the authors say suits confirming a suspected disorder: GNE 3000Hz, HNRD, jitter local, jitter PPQ5, shimmer APQ3, shimmer DDA and SNL 2600-5100Hz.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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 design takes one snapshot in time, so it cannot say whether these scores change with treatment or whether the cut-offs hold up on a second assessment. Only 99 people without a voice disorder were compared with 277 who had one, and those 99 were university students and staff rather than people who came to a clinic. How well a cut-off performs depends on how common the condition is in the group tested, so these numbers may behave differently in your caseload. There is no agreed gold standard for what counts as a voice disorder. The researchers used a doctor's laryngeal examination combined with three speech-language pathologists' listening judgements, and a listening judgement is subjective even though repeat ratings agreed well. Professional voice users and anyone who had already had voice therapy or surgery were excluded, so the cut-offs are untested in exactly the patients you might most want them for. Forty-four measures were extracted but only the 23 that reached the researchers' own threshold are reported, so a reader cannot see how the other 21 performed or whether the cut-offs were chosen after looking at the data. The paper recommends SNL 100-2600Hz, SNL 100-3000Hz and SNL 100-8000Hz for suspected cases on the grounds that both sensitivity and specificity reach 80%, but its own table gives SNL 100-2600Hz a specificity of 72.12% and SNL 100-8000Hz 70.63%.
Declared interests
The authors declare no financial support and nothing to declare. No funder or company is named as having paid for, designed or written up the work.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat a positive result on any of these measures as a diagnosis of a voice disorder. The paper's own numbers show a positive result was correct only 17.5% to 31.6% of the time, while a negative result was reliable at 94.1% to 100%. The cut-offs also come from one clinic where just 99 of 376 people had healthy voices, most of them university students and staff, so they may not transfer unchanged to your caseload.
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 →