Cargando…

Auditory voice-perception analysis sensitivity and specificity in the screening of laryngeal disorders

Despite the growing experience obtained from the National Pro-Voice Campaigns in screening individuals with laryngeal alterations, we still have not established which would be the best assessment method: speech and hearing screening alone, laryngoscopy alone, or a joint work with physicians and spee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alessandra Eckley, Claudia, Anelli, Wanderlene, de Campos Duprat, André
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18568192
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1808-8694(15)31084-3
Descripción
Sumario:Despite the growing experience obtained from the National Pro-Voice Campaigns in screening individuals with laryngeal alterations, we still have not established which would be the best assessment method: speech and hearing screening alone, laryngoscopy alone, or a joint work with physicians and speech therapists doing the screening together. AIM: the goal of the present study was to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the auditory voice-perception analysis compared to videolaryngoscopy as a screening method for individuals with laryngo-pharyngeal disorders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the vocal aspects (GRBASI scale, pitch, loudness, CPF and resonance) and videolaryngoscopic from 567 individuals who participated in the National Pro-Voice Campaign 2005 in a tertiary university hospital. RESULTS: the most frequent laryngeal alteration was laryngo-pharyngeal reflux (LFR) (43.5%), followed by benign lesions (17%) and suspected malignant lesions (1%). The sensitivity of the auditory voice-perception assessment was of 91% for patients with benign lesions and 100% in those with suspected malignant lesions; however, it was only 76% in LFR. Of those tests considered normal, there were vocal alterations in 52%. The positive predictive value was of 71% and the negative was 61%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its importance, the auditory voice-perception assessment should not be used as a single screening instrument in voice health campaigns.