Effectiveness of Semi-Occluded Vocal Tract Exercises (SOVTEs) in Patients with Dysphonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Journal of voice Vol. 38; no. 1; pp. 245.e17 - 245.e35
• Main Authors: Pozzali, Ilaria, Pizzorni, Nicole, Ruggeri, Anna, Schindler, Antonio, Dal Farra, Fulvio
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.01.2024
• Subjects: Voice therapy; Dysphonia; Systematic review; SOVTEs; Semi-occluded vocal tract exercises
• ISSN: 0892-1997; 1873-4588
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.06.009

Dysphonia is a disorder characterized by an alteration in the overall quality of the voice which reduces quality of life. Therefore, we assessed the effectiveness of SOVTEs in the management of dysfunctional and organic dysphonia for acoustic, perceptual-auditive, aerodynamic parameters and self-perception of the disease. a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Findings were reported according to the PRISMA statement. Five databases were searched for RCTs and non- or quasi-RCTs. Studies were independently assessed using the Cochrane Risk of bias (RoB) and ROBINS-I tools. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated only at post-treatment. GRADE criteria were used to assess the quality of evidence. eight articles were included. Studies investigated several SOVTEs, alone or in combination. None of the study was completely judged at low RoB. The quality of evidence resulted very low for each analysis. SOVTEs revealed to be statistically more effective than control interventions in improving F0 (ES: -14.42; CI 95%: -27.16, -1.69); P = 0.03), whereas shimmer did not change significantly (ES: -0.43; CI 95%:-02.02, 1.15; P = 0.59). Not significant changes in favor of control groups were found for jitter (ES: 0.13; CI 95%: -0.14, 0.40; P  = 0.34) and overall gravity in the perceptual-auditory evaluation (ES: 0.13 CI 95%: -0.50, 0.77; P = 0. 68). Among secondary outcomes, evidence suggested that SOVTEs are more effective than control interventions in Psub reduction (ES: -1.47; CI 95%: -2.84, -0.10; P = 0.03); self-assessment resulted not significantly in favor of SOVTEs (VHI/VRQoL: ES -0.23; CI 95% -1.14, 0.69; P = 0.63 and VTDS/VDSI: ES -4.85, CI 95% -25.13, 15.42; P = 0.64). results obtained showed that voice therapy based on SOVTEs is not to consider significantly superior if compared to other treatments, even if a favorable trend was detected and should be taken into consideration. Further high-quality RCTs on specific SOVTEs are recommended to produce better-quality evidence.