CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Voice and Speech DisordersRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchGastroesophageal reflux and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceptual, Aerodynamic, and Acoustic Characteristics of Voice Changes in Patients with Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease

Open access
Lechien, Jérôme R., Khalife, Mohamad, Huet, Kathy, Finck, Camille, Bousard, Laura, Delvaux, Véronique, Piccaluga, Myriam, Harmegnies, Bernard, Saussez, Sven·2019·Ear, Nose & Throat Journal
DOI 10.1177/0145561319840830
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) is an inflammatory condition suspected to be associated with dysphonia. In this study, we investigated multidimensional perceptual, aerodynamic, and acoustic voice changes in patients with clinically diagnosed LPR compared to healthy participants. We prospectively included 80 outpatients with Reflux Finding Score (RFS) >7 and Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) >13 from September 2013 to April 2016 and we compared clinical and voice quality assessments of these patients with 80 healthy participants. Statistically significant differences were found between groups with regard to Voice Handicap Index, perceptual voice quality (grades of dysphonia, roughness, strain, breathiness, asthenia, and instability), phonatory quotient, percentage jitter, percentage shimmer, peak-to-peak amplitude variation, standard deviation of fundamental frequency, and noise to harmonic ratio. Granulation score of RFS was found to affect the highest number of acoustic parameters. We did not identify significant correlation between vocal fold edema and objective voice quality measurements. This study supports that patients with LPR have significant deterioration of both subjective and objective voice quality compared to healthy participants.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0145561319840830

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • European Consensus guidelines recommend multidimensional voice quality assessment combining laryngostroboscopy with perceptual, patient-reported, and acoustic measures.

    “The European Consensus guidelines recommend multidimensional VQ assessment combining laryngostroboscopy with perceptual, patient-reported, and acoustic measures [5].”

    From Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Laryngeal Disorders: An Integrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Clinical and Voice Quality Evaluations section (p. 2) describes this study using videolaryngostroboscopy, patient-reported Voice Handicap Index scores, and perceptual and acoustic measures. It does not say that European Consensus guidelines recommend this combination; the guideline attribution is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most databases and consensuses recommend acoustic analysis on sustained vowels, particularly the vowel /a/, produced at comfortable pitch and intensity.

    “most databases and consensuses recommending the acoustic analysis on sustained vowels, particularly the vowel /a/, produced at comfortable pitch and intensity [5,23].”

    From Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Laryngeal Disorders: An Integrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    Clinical and Voice Quality Evaluations (p. 2) describes acoustic analysis of sustained /a/ produced at comfortable pitch and intensity. The paper does not say that most databases or consensuses recommend this approach; its Discussion (p. 4) instead notes nonstandardization in how acoustic measurements are made. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most studies rely on recordings in acoustically controlled environments using quality microphones and standardized parameters.

    “Most studies rely on recordings in acoustically controlled environments using quality microphones and standardized parameters [43,44], such as the European Consensus for Voice Quality [5].”

    From Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Laryngeal Disorders: An Integrative Review (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    Clinical and Voice Quality Evaluations (p. 2) says this study recorded samples in a sound-treated room with a high-quality microphone, supporting it as an example of those practices. It does not establish that most studies do so. The Discussion (p. 4) instead describes nonstandardized methods for measuring acoustic parameters across the studies it reviews, so it does not support the claim about standardized parameters. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kumar R, 2008, Online J Health Allied Scs, 7, 5
  2. Woisard V, 2004, Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord), 125, 307

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Lechien, J. R., Khalife, M., Huet, K., Finck, C., Bousard, L., Delvaux, V., Piccaluga, M., Harmegnies, B., & Saussez, S.
Affiliations
  • Laboratory of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons, Belgium
  • Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, RHMS Baudour, EpiCURA Hospital, Baudour, Belgium
  • University of Mons (BE)
  • Epicura (BE)
ORCID
Venue
Ear, Nose & Throat Journal
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-04-08
Volume
98
Issue
6
Pages
E44-E50
ISSN
  • 0145-5613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-7522
DOI
10.1177/0145561319840830
OpenAlex
W2937977996
Cited by
11
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Ear Nose & Throat Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORBi (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ORBi UMONS (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory and Cough-Related Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Keywords
laryngopharyngeal reflux, dysphonia, voice quality, acoustic voice analysis, aerodynamic voice parameters, perceptual voice quality, vocal fold edema, granulation, Voice Handicap Index, jitter and shimmer, reflux finding score, reflux symptom index
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Edema, Female, Granulation Tissue, Humans, Laryngitis, Laryngoscopy, Male, Middle Aged, Spirometry, Vocal Cords, Voice Disorders, Voice Quality, Case-Control Studies, Stroboscopy, Dysphonia, Young Adult, Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review