OBJECTIVE: To analyze the reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness of the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) for measuring voice handicap in individuals with voice disorders.
METHODS: This systematic review followed the recommendations of the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments. Studies that validated the VHI, analyzed the measurement properties of reliability, measurement error, or responsiveness, and had dysphonic individuals as the study population were included. The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The manual search was carried out on gray literature in the Biblioteca Digital Brasileira de Teses e Dissertações and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses, in addition to mapping citations and consulting an expert in the field. Evidence selection, data extraction, risk of bias analysis, certainty of evidence, and good psychometric measurements were performed by two blinded and independent reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed using Fisher\'s transformed r-to-z correlation coefficient and standardized mean difference. Heterogeneity was calculated using Tau² and I² statistical tests in JAMOVI 2.3.2 software.
RESULTS: Eighty studies were included in the meta-analysis. When assessing the risk of bias, most studies were classified as inadequate during the reliability and measurement error stages. In the responsiveness stage, they were classified as doubtful in the sensitivity and specificity sub-boxes and good in the comparison sub-box with a gold standard instrument. For psychometric properties, most studies were classified as indeterminate in terms of both reliability and responsiveness. In test-retest reliability and responsiveness, the average outcome differed significantly from zero, indicating agreement between the test and retest moments and a significant reduction in the VHI score after intervention. Considering certainty of the evidence, the level of evidence was very low in both the reliability and responsiveness stages. The analyzed studies did not evaluate observational errors, and hence, they were not considered in this review.
CONCLUSIONS: The VHI proved to be reliable and responsive in measuring voice handicap. However, it should be used with caution, as there is heterogeneity, a risk of bias, and no adherence to the analysis of observational error.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of telerehabilitation (TR) and face-to-face rehabilitation (FTF) methods on the outcomes of adults with voice disorders and to analyze the effectiveness of TR.
METHODS: Following Boolean Logic, a search strategy was devised, combining subject terms and keywords based on the interventions and populations outlined in the inclusion criteria. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang, CQVIP databases, and manually screened academic conference papers, journal articles, and gray literature to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on remote voice therapy. Two researchers assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the risk of bias assessment tool for RCTs outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0.
RESULTS: Five trials with a total of 233 patients with voice disorders were included in the study after screening. The results revealed a significant difference in Jitter change values (mean difference [MD]=-0.12, 95%CI [-0.23,-0.01], P = 0.04) between TR and FTF, maximum phonation time (MD=0.76, 95%CI [-0.60,2.13], P = 0.27), Shimmer (MD=-0.04, 95%CI [-0.11,0.03], P = 0.27), voice handicap index (MD=0.87, 95%CI [-1.77,3.50], P = 0.52), and GRBAS(G) (MD=-0.00, 95%CI [-0.01,0.01], P = 0.99) had no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: TR demonstrates comparable efficacy to FTF in voice treatment and is associated with higher levels of patient satisfaction, making it a viable and effective therapeutic modality. However, given the limited sample size analyzed in this study, further validation of this conclusion necessitates additional RCTs with larger sample sizes. Furthermore, researchers should remain cognizant of the constraints associated with TR and consistently refine treatment protocols to enhance the efficacy of voice therapy.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of singing as an intervention for aging voice.
UNASSIGNED: Quantitative studies of interventions for older adults with any medical condition that involves singing as training were reviewed, measured by respiration, phonation, and posture, which are the physical functions related to the aging voice. English and Chinese studies published until April 2024 were searched using 31 electronic databases, and seven studies were included. The included articles were assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations rubric.
UNASSIGNED: Seven studies were included. These studies reported outcome measures that were related to respiratory functions only. For the intervention effect, statistically significant improvements were observed in five of the included studies, among which three studies had large effect sizes. The overall level of evidence of the included studies was not high, with three studies having moderate levels and the rest having lower levels. The intervention activities included trainings other than singing. These non-singing training items may have caused co-intervention bias in the study results.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review suggests that singing as an intervention for older adults with respiratory and cognitive problems could improve respiration and respiratory-phonatory control. However, none of the included studies covers the other two of the physical functions related to aging voice (phonatory and postural functions). The overall level of evidence of the included studies was not high either. There is a need for more research evidence in singing-based intervention specifically for patient with aging voice.

OBJECTIVE: Survey the current literature on artificial intelligence (AI) applications for detecting and classifying vocal pathology using voice recordings, and identify challenges and opportunities for advancing the field forward.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Scopus databases.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Peer-reviewed journal articles in the English language were included if they used an AI approach to detect or classify pathological voices using voice recordings from patients diagnosed with vocal pathologies.
RESULTS: Eighty-two studies were included in the review between the years 2000 and 2023, with an increase in publication rate from one study per year in 2012 to 10 per year in 2022. Seventy-two studies (88%) were aimed at detecting the presence of voice pathology, 24 (29%) at classifying the type of voice pathology present, and 4 (5%) at assessing pathological voice using the Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, and Strain scale. Thirty-six databases were used to collect and analyze speech samples. Fourteen articles (17%) did not provide information about their AI model validation methodology. Zero studies moved beyond the preclinical and offline AI model development stages. Zero studies specified following a reporting guideline for AI research.
CONCLUSIONS: There is rising interest in the potential of AI technology to aid the detection and classification of voice pathology. Three challenges-and areas of opportunities-for advancing this research are heterogeneity of databases, lack of clinical validation studies, and inconsistent reporting.

OBJECTIVE: Lipoid proteinosis (LP) or Urbach-Wiethe disease (OMIM 247100) is a rare syndrome characterised by early vocal folds infiltration and subsequent multi-organ involvement. LP is often unrecognised and its associated hoarseness is overlooked. The main objective of the study was to investigate hoarseness in LP and implement a diagnosis among otolaryngologists.
METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE and OMIM databases were systematically searched. Authors concentrated the search on published articles starting from the discovery of the pathogenesis of LP by Hamada et al. in 2002. Only cases in which a diagnosis was reported both clinically and through biopsy and/or genetic molecular testing were included. Characteristics of the LP cases were extracted from each included study. Results were obtained through Generalized Estimating Equations.
RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 217 articles, of which 74 (34.1%) met the selection criteria. A total of 154 cases were included. Hoarseness was described in all LP cases and clearly stated as the onset symptom in 68.8%. The onset was on average at 19 months of age (CI: 3.00-20.00), while the mean age at diagnosis was 15 years (CI: 10.00-30.00). Therefore, the diagnostic delay amounted to 13.42 years (CI: 8.00-23.83). Hoarseness alone was responsible for an LP diagnosis in only 14.3% of cases. In 43.5% of cases, genetic analysis of the ECM1 gene was performed and exon 6 was the most frequently altered portion.
CONCLUSIONS: Analysing the largest number of published cases, the study underlined that hoarseness is the key symptom for diagnosing LP since early childhood, though frequently overlooked.

患者自评类嗓音量表是量化嗓音问题严重程度及其对生活影响程度的重要工具，具有很高的临床价值。全球范围内有一系列患者自评类嗓音量表被广泛运用和跨语种推行，国内在患者自评类嗓音量表跨文化调适方面已有较多研究，不少临床常用量表已被汉化。然而，国内的相关研究主要针对个体量表进行，尚无对此类研究的综述，因此不易形成对患者自评类嗓音量表汉化情况的系统把握。本文对患者自评类嗓音量表汉化的质量、数量和类型进行了系统梳理，从宏观角度把握相关量表的跨文化调适和信效度检验现状，明确下一步研究工作的方向。.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess published systematic reviews that discussed noninvasive management of voice disorders. An umbrella review was conducted to collect, organize, and summarize narratively all available pharmacologic and voice therapy interventions.
METHODS: Umbrella review of systematic reviews.
METHODS: Pertinent systematic reviews were identified by searching Pubmed/Medline and Embase. A primary screen identified studies related to voice. The second round of screening focused on studies that involved noninvasive management of voice disorders such as pharmacologic or voice therapy interventions. Variables of interest included study design, number of studies included in the review, target population, method of intervention, and outcomes.
RESULTS: Forty-three systematic reviews were eligible and included in the umbrella review. Ten studies focused on pharmacologic interventions, and 33 studies focused on voice therapy. Individual studies included in the systematic reviews ranged from 2-47, with a total of 601 studies overall.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a detailed review of all available systematic reviews on noninvasive management of voice disorders. Explored medications included proton pump inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, antibiotics, corticosteroids, and hormone replacement. Explored voice therapy techniques included hydration, vocal function exercises, laryngeal manual therapy, respiratory exercise, biofeedback, phonation, coping strategies, and others. This may be utilized to guide therapeutic decision-making and identify current gaps in the literature that may warrant future investigation.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the systematic reviews that focus on the prevalence of voice disorders (VDs), associated risk factors, and the demographic characteristics of patients with dysphonia. An umbrella review was conducted to identify general research themes in voice literature that might guide future research initiatives and contribute to the classification of VDs as a worldwide health concern.
METHODS: Umbrella review of systematic reviews.
METHODS: Pubmed/Medline and Embase were searched for eligible systematic reviews by two authors independently. Extracted data items included the study publication details, study design, characteristics of the target population, sample size, region/country, and incidence and/or prevalence of the VD(s) of interest.
RESULTS: Forty systematic reviews were included. Sixteen reported a meta-analysis. Great heterogeneity in methods was found. A total of 277,035 patients across the included studies were included with a prevalence ranging from 0%-90%. The countries represented best were the United States and Brazil, with 13 studies each. Aging, occupational voice use, lifestyle choices, and specific comorbidities, such as obesity or hormonal disorders, seem to be associated with an increased prevalence of dysphonia.
CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the influence of VDs on distinct patient groups and the general population. A variety of modifiable or non-modifiable risk factors, having varied degrees of impact on voice qualities, have been identified. The overall effect of VDs is probably underestimated due to factors, such as sample size, patient selection, underreporting of symptoms, and asymptomatic cases. Employing systematic reviews with consistent methodologies and criteria for diagnosing VDs would enhance the ability to determine the prevalence of VDs and their impact.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, several machine learning (ML) algorithms have been investigated to assess their efficacy in detecting voice disorders. Literature indicates that ML algorithms can detect voice disorders with high accuracy. This suggests that ML has the potential to assist clinicians in the analysis and treatment outcome evaluation of voice disorders. However, despite numerous research studies, none of the algorithms have been sufficiently reliable to be used in clinical settings. Through this review, we aim to identify critical issues that have inhibited the use of ML algorithms in clinical settings by identifying standard audio tasks, acoustic features, processing algorithms and environmental factors that affect the efficacy of those algorithms.
METHODS: We will search the following databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Compendex, CINAHL, Medline, IEEE Explore and Embase. Our search strategy has been developed with the assistance of the university library staff to accommodate the different syntactical requirements. The literature search will include the period between 2013 and 2023, and will be confined to articles published in English. We will exclude editorials, ongoing studies and working papers. The selection, extraction and analysis of the search data will be conducted using the \'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews\' system. The same system will also be used for the synthesis of the results.
BACKGROUND: This scoping review does not require ethics approval as the review solely consists of peer-reviewed publications. The findings will be presented in peer-reviewed publications related to voice pathology.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common hormonal disorder among young women, correlated with hyperandrogenism. Among the symptoms of PCOS, vocal alterations are quite unknown. Dysphonia may be related to hyperandrogenism, and there is no consensus about its prevalence and the severity of vocal disorders, which can cause noticeable discomfort.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Four studies on PCOS that evaluated the phonatory system were included for a total of 174 patients (96 PCOS, 78 controls), and a meta-analysis on comparable data was performed.
RESULTS: Four studies evaluated parameters related to vocal symptomatology, altered audiometric examination, and findings at the laryngoscopy in patients affected by PCOS versus controls. Although the individual studies showed increased incidence of alterations and a tendency to develop speech fatigue in women with PCOS, when the results of studies were pulled in meta-analysis, the overall difference was not statistically significant. The studies themselves were very different from each other; therefore, it is hard to draw any firm conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of vocal alterations, the correlation with hyperandrogenism, the quality of life, and the voice changes after starting a therapy for PCOS. The present meta-analysis failed to find any difference in terms of PCOS and control cohort. However, the lack of high-quality studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. New and larger studies or big population program data are therefore warranted.