Terminology and frameworks used for the classification of voice disorders: a scoping review protocol

• Published in: JBI evidence synthesis Vol. 19; no. 2; p. 454
• Main Authors: Payten, Christopher L, Chiapello, Greg, Weir, Kelly A, Madill, Catherine J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.02.2021
• ISSN: 2689-8381
• DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00066

This review aims to examine the literature on the terminology and descriptions for the broad classification of voice disorders, and outline the criteria described to guide clinicians in differential classification. The process of classifying the etiology of voice disorders is complex. A key challenge for clinicians and researchers is a lack of consensus on agreed terminology to define umbrella terms commonly used in the published literature. Consistency in the terminology for voice disorder classification, and well-defined conditions within those groups, will provide greater clarity for clinicians and researchers. Published and unpublished literature that include participants (adults and children) diagnosed with a voice disorder using any criteria or framework will be considered. Studies will be included provided they give a descriptive detail of the structure of the classification system and describe a methodological approach to determine classification criteria. Studies will be excluded if they include animal models or participants with alaryngeal speech, elective mutism, or resonance disorders. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science. Studies will be limited to those published in English from 1940 to present. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved articles against the eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis of the main concepts will include classification terminology, classification criteria, commonly described specific diagnoses within the groups, test measures used to determine criteria, critical appraisal items, and gaps in research.