SLPNarrative ReviewJournal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation2023

Examining the Influence of Chemosensation on Laryngeal Health and Disorders.

Carolyn K Novaleski, Richard L Doty, Alissa A Nolden and 3 others

PMID 33455853

WHAT IT FOUND

Airborne chemical triggers like disinfectants and dust cause laryngeal breathing issues, but clinical testing lacks standardization.

Using established chemosensory tools can improve patient education and provocation testing reliability, though these methods are theoretical and not yet validated for treatment efficacy.

Key findings

01Inhaled odorants and irritants are common triggers for laryngeal-respiratory disorders, with occupational exposures accounting for 87% of reported cases in the literature.

02Current clinical provocation challenges are inconsistent and rarely standardized, making it difficult to replicate results or compare diagnoses across patients.

03Chemosensory science offers standardized stimuli and psychophysical testing methods that could improve the reliability of laryngeal assessments, but their clinical utility is not yet established.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The review is based on a small number of case reports and retrospective studies, which limits the strength of the evidence. The proposed applications of chemosensory testing to laryngeal disorders are conceptual and have not been validated in clinical trials. The authors acknowledge that no universal protocol exists for these new assessment methods and that their full clinical utility remains unknown.

The easy way to misread this

Do not implement standardized chemosensory provocation testing or psychophysical measures as evidence-based clinical tools. These methods are proposed by the authors as potential improvements to current inconsistent practices, but the review explicitly states that their full clinical utility remains to be known.

Read it on PubMed →