Table 2. Characteristics of randomized controlled trials on treatment of hoarseness.
| Reference | Disease | n | Form of _evaluation | Treatment procedure/group | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (e10) | Functional dysphonia (female teachers with voice problems) |
44 | 1. 3 | G1 = vocal hygiene (n = 15) G2 = voice amplifier (n = 15) G3 = no treatment (control) (n = 14) |
G1 and G2 benefited compared with G3 |
| (e9) | Functional dysphonia | 30 | 1. 2. 3. 4 | G1 = indirect treatment (n = 10) G2 = direct and indirect treatment (n = 10) G3 = no treatment (control) (n = 10) |
G1 (60%) and G2 (90%) benefited compared with G3 (10%) |
| (e8) | Functional dysphonia | 45 | 1. 2. 3. 4 | G1 = indirect treatment (n = 10) G2 = direct and indirect treatment (n = 10) G3 = no treatment (control) (n = 10) | G1 (46%) and G2 (93%) benefited most; G3 (14%) |
| (e11) | Functional dysphonia (female teachers with voice problems) |
40 | 2. 3 | G1 = treatment (n = 22) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 18) |
Significant improvement in G1 compared with G2 |
| (e12) | Functional dysphonia | 50 | 1. 2. 5 _(electroglottography) | G1 = classic voice therapy (n = 26) G2 = voice therapy with visual biofeedback. flexible transnasal (n = 25) |
G1 und G2 benefited significantly; G2 was more effective |
| (e13) | Female teachers with voice problems | 20 | 1. 4 | G1 = voice therapy (n = 9) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 11) |
Significant improvement in G1 compared with G2 |
| (e14) | Patients with functional dysphonia but without any other relevant organic pathology such as polyps or vocal cord paresis | 133 | 1. 2. 3. 4 | G1 = voice exercise treatment (n = 70) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 63) |
Significant improvement in G1 compared with G2 |
| (e15) | Female student teachers with mild voice problems due to vocal cord edema or functional dysphonia | 40 | 1. 2. 4 | G1 = voice exercise treatment (group therapy) (n = 20) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 20) |
Significant improvement in G1 compared with G2 |
| (e42) | Status post laser resection/irradiation of vocal cord cancer | 23 | 1. 2. 4 | G1 = voice therapy (n = 12) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 11) |
G1 benefited compared with G2 |
| (e26) | Acute laryngitis | 106 | 2. 4 | G1 = erythromycin (n = 56) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 50) |
No differences in voice quality or laryngoscopy findings |
| (e25) | Acute laryngitis | 100 | 2 | G1 = penicillin V (n = 50) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 50) |
No differences in voice quality |
| (18) | Presbyphonia | 16 | 1 | G1 = VFE (n = 6) G2 = PhoRTE (n = 5) G3 = no treatment (control) (n = 5) |
Significant improvement in G1 und G2 compared with G3 |
| (36) | Spasmodic dysphonia of _adductor type | 13 | 3 | G1 = administration of botulinumtoxin A _(n = 7) G2 = no treatment (control) (n = 6) |
Distinct improvement of voice in G1 compared with control G2 |
Summary of randomized controlled trials on treatment of hoarseness with evidence level 1a or 1b
Form of evaluation: 1 = assessment of quality of life; 2 = auditory perception; 3 = acoustic/technical analyses; 4 = laryngo(strobo)scopy; 5 = other
G. group; n. number of patients; VFE. vocal function exercise; PhoRTE. phonation resistance training exercise