Mapping of the characteristics in the CoDAS journal publications in the voice area: a scoping review.
Walter Williams Albrechet Chamun, Vanessa Veis Ribeiro, Glaucya Madazio and 1 others
PMID 37283366WHAT IT FOUND
Most voice research in this Brazilian journal is cross-sectional, using self-assessments and perceptual ratings.
Few are randomized trials. Many studies use unvalidated scales or omit key details, making it hard to apply findings directly or compare results across studies.
Key findings
01Cross-sectional designs were the most common study type, accounting for 59.7% of the included publications.
02Self-assessment and perceptual-auditory voice judgment were the most frequent outcomes in these cross-sectional studies.
03A significant number of studies used scales created by the researchers themselves rather than validated instruments.
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 review was limited to a single journal (CoDAS) and the SciELO database, so it does not represent global voice research. Only one author performed the initial study selection, which may introduce bias. Many included studies had incomplete reporting of methods, such as missing data on participant age, sex, or intervention specifics, which limits the depth of the mapping.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the prevalence of specific instruments like the GRBASI or VSS as a recommendation for their superiority. The review simply maps what was used, not what works best. Furthermore, do not assume that interventions described in these cross-sectional or quasi-experimental studies have proven efficacy, as high-quality randomized trials were rare.