Retest Reliability for Complete Airway Interruption Systems of Aerodynamic Measurement.
Jim R Lamb, Sarah A Schultz, Austin J Scholp and 2 others
PMID 32253079WHAT IT FOUND
Mechanical airflow interruption gives more consistent voice pressure and flow readings than the standard mouth-pressure method.
For therapists using these tools, mechanical data is more reliable for tracking changes in patients with voice disorders.
Key findings
01Mechanical interruption showed lower variability and better reliability than labial methods for measuring subglottal pressure, mean flow rate, and laryngeal resistance.
02Labial and mechanical methods produced similar mean subglottal pressure values, but the mechanical method was more consistent across repeated trials and visits.
03The mechanical method had good reliability for most measures, while the labial method showed only moderate reliability for pressure and resistance.
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 study included only healthy adults, so reliability in patients with voice disorders is unknown. One outlier significantly affected the reliability score for phonation threshold pressure in the mechanical method. The two methods measure different types of phonation threshold pressure (onset vs. offset), which limits direct comparison of that specific metric.
Declared interests
The corresponding author held a patent on the mechanical interruption device used in the study, though the patent has expired and he received no financial benefit.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume mechanical methods are superior for phonation threshold pressure. The study found this measure was less reliable with mechanical interruption, and the methods measure different physiological events (onset vs. offset), so they are not interchangeable for this specific outcome.