Table 5.

Summary of Tables 4 and 5, studies that found a significant difference between speech methods per outcome measure

	TES > ES	TES > ELS	ES > ELS	ES > TES
Fundamental frequency	Arias et al. [27] Bellandese et al. [32] Blood [33] Siric et al. [38]	–	–	–
MPT	Siric et al. [38]	–	–	–
Intensity	Siric et al. [38]	–	–	–
Perceptual voice quality	Williams and Watson [54]	Eadie et al. [41] Williams and Watson [54]	–	–
Perceptual intelligibility	Williams and Watson [54]	Eadie et al. [41] Williams and Watson [54]	Williams and Watson [54]	–
PROs	–	Moukarbel [49]	Salturk et al. [52]	Salturk et al. [52]

> Indicating a better mean group outcome. Level of significance was held at p ≤ .05. Studies presented in bold had a level A risk of bias

ES esophageal speakers, TES tracheoesophageal speakers, ELS electrolarynx speakers, MPT maximum phonation time, V-RQOL voice-related quality of life