Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T05:33:21.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subjective voice analysis in patients with muscular tension dysphonia: comparison between clinician and patient evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

B Mateos-Serrano Open the ORCID record for B Mateos-Serrano [Opens in a new window] ,
I García-López ,
A Toledano  and
J Gavilán
B Mateos-Serrano*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
I García-López
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
A Toledano
Affiliation:
Independent investigator, Lyon, France
J Gavilán
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
*
Author for correspondence: Dr B Mateos-Serrano, Department of Otolaryngology, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de la Castellana 261, Madrid 28046, Spain E-mail: blanca.mateos.serrano@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

This study evaluated the correlation between patient and clinician subjective voice analysis in a group of patients suffering from muscular tension dysphonia. This disease does not usually present with organic lesions, and voice analysis is crucial to evaluate it.

Methods

A retrospective study with 75 patients was performed. Correlation between grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia and strain scale and voice handicap index-10 was analysed. Any possible influence of the type of muscular tension dysphonia on these two scales was studied.

Results

There are only a few studies that correlate voice handicap index-10 and the grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia and strain scale; however, none of them are specific for patients suffering from muscular tension dysphonia. A moderate correlation (r = 0.56) was found. No influence of muscular tension dysphonia type on voice handicap index-10 score was found, but muscular tension dysphonia type 4 had worse grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia and strain scale scores than other muscular tension dysphonia types. This could be explained if muscular tension dysphonia type 4 is considered to be the most severe form of this disease.

Conclusion

The use of assessment scales based on the opinion of both the clinician and patient must be considered as complementary clinical tools in order to perform a complete assessment of dysphonia.

Keywords

DysphoniaVoice QualityVoice DisordersLaryngeal MusclesVoice FatigueQuality Of Life

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 5 , May 2021 , pp. 458 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Dr B Mateos-Serrano takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Werth, K, Voigt, D, Döllinger, M, Eysholdt, U, Lohscheller, J. Clinical value of acoustic voice measures: a retrospective study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:1261–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziwei, Y, Zheng, P, Pin, D. Multiparameter voice assessment for voice disorder patients: a correlation analysis between objective and subjective parameters. J Voice 2014;28:770–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirano, M. Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice. In: Arnold, GE, Winckel, F, Wyke, BD, eds. Disorders of Human Communication, 5, Clinical Examination of Voice. Wien: Springer-Verlag, 1981:81–4Google Scholar
Dejonckere, PH, Bradley, P, Clemente, P, Cornut, G, Crevier-Buchman, L, Friedrich, G et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;258:77–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, GB, Gerratt, BR, Verdolini Abbott, K, Barkmeier-Kraemer, J, Hillman, RE. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2009;18:124–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Childs, LF, Bielinski, C, Toles, L, Hamilton, A, Deane, J, Mau, T. Relationship between patient-perceived vocal handicap and clinician-rated level of vocal dysfunction. Laryngoscope 2015;125:180–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ASHA. National Outcomes Measurement System. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2002. In: http://www.asha.org/NOMS/ [1 September 2019]Google Scholar
Jacobson, BH, Johnson, A, Grywalski, C, Silbergleit, A, Jacobson, G, Benninger, MS et al. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): Development and Validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6:66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, CA, Lee, AS, Osborne, J, Zullo, T, Murry, T. Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1549–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogikyan, ND, Sethuraman, G. Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999;13:557–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karnell, MP, Melton, SD, Childes, JM, Coleman, TC, Dailey, SA, Hoffman, HT. Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders. J Voice 2007;21:576–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koufman, JA, Blalock, PD. Functional voice disorders. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1991;24:1059–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Houtte, E, Van Lierde, K, Claeys, S. Pathophysiology and treatment of muscle tension dysphonia: a review of the current knowledge. J Voice 2011;25:202–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cobeta Marco, I, Nuñez Batalla, F, Fernández González, S. Disfonía funcional. In: Cobeta Marco, I, Nuñez Batalla, F, Fernández González, S, eds. Patología de la Voz. Barcelona: Marge Medica Books, 2014;323–33Google Scholar
Morrison, MD, Rammage, LA, Belisle, GM, Pullan, CB, Nichol, H. Muscular tension dysphonia. J Otolaryngol 1983;12:302–6Google ScholarPubMed
Murry, T, Medrado, R, Hogikyan, ND, Aviv, JE. The relationship between ratings of voice quality and quality of life measures. J Voice 2004;18:183–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papadakis, CE, Asimakopoulou, P, Proimos, E, Perogamvrakis, G, Papoutsaki, E, Chimona, T. Subjective and objective voice assessments after recurrent laryngeal nerve-preserved total thyroidectomy. J Voice 2017;31:515.e15–515.e21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, V, Aleric, Z, Jancic, E. Comparing voice self-assessment with auditory perceptual analysis in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;19:100–5Google ScholarPubMed
Behrman, A, Sulica, L, He, T. Factors predicting patient perception of dysphonia caused by benign vocal fold lesions. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1693–700CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ugulino, AC, Oliveira, G, Behlau, M. Perceived dysphonia by the clinician's and patient's viewpoint. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2012;24:113–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Señaris González, B, Núñez Batalla, F, Corte Santos, P, Suárez Nieto, C. Factors predicting Voice Handicap Index. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2006;57:101–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed