Parameters and Scales Used to Assess and Report Findings From Stroboscopy: A Systematic Review.
Heather Shaw Bonilha, Maude Desjardins, Kendrea L Garand and 1 others
PMID 29103609WHAT IT FOUND
Voice research rarely uses stroboscopy as a treatment outcome measure.
When it does, 62 studies used 141 different terms and up to 24 different scales for the same features. This lack of standardization makes results impossible to compare across studies.
Key findings
01Of 62 studies using rating scales, 141 different terms were used to describe laryngeal parameters, with 36 of the 49 parameters rated on more than one scale.
02Only 29% of studies adapted their rating parameters from a previously published protocol, and most modified these protocols rather than using them as published.
03Statistical significance was reported in 53% of included studies, with parameters like regularity of vibration showing significant change 88% of the time, while specific lesions showed no significant change in any study.
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 only included English-language articles, which may miss relevant research from other countries. Search terms may not have detected all pertinent articles. A meta-analysis was impossible due to the heterogeneity of parameters and scales, limiting the ability to quantify overall effects. The authors had to make assumptions when classifying terms into categories because some articles did not provide sufficient information. Unpublished reports and studies without rating scales were excluded, potentially biasing the results toward studies that did attempt standardized measurement.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that the high percentage of significant changes for parameters like regularity of vibration proves these features are sensitive to treatment. These figures come from a small subset of studies using inconsistent scales, and the review notes that reliability issues with these dynamic parameters remain a major concern.