Intervention outcomes of two treatments for muscle tension dysphonia: A randomized controlled trial

Christopher R. Watts, Amy Hamilton, Laura Toles, Lesley F Childs, I-Fan T Mau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that stretch-and-flow voice therapy (SnF) is noninferior to resonant voice therapy (RVT) for speakers with muscle tension dysphonia. Method: Participants with primary muscle tension dysphonia were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants received 6 sessions of either SnF or RVT for 6 weeks (1 session per week). Pretreatment and posttreatment audio recordings of sustained vowels and connected speech were acquired. Response to treatment was assessed using the voice handicap index (VHI) as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included the acoustic voice quality index, the smoothed cepstral peak prominence, and scales from the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice instrument. Data were analyzed for 21 participants who completed the study (12 in the SnF group, 9 in the RVT group). Results: Direction of change for the primary outcome measure and all 3 secondary outcome measures at posttreatment was in the direction of improvement for both SnF and RVT. Confidence intervals for VHI measures did not cross the null effect line on forest plots, suggesting significant effects for both treatments on the primary outcome measure. The effect sizes for pretreatment to posttreatment changes in VHI were large for both treatment groups. Similar results were found for the secondary acoustic outcome measures. There were statistically significant pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary and secondary outcome measures for patients receiving both treatments, indicating significant improvement in response to both RVT and SnF. There were no statistically significant differences in pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary outcome measure or any secondary outcome measure between the two groups. The within-group pretreatment to posttreatment changes in Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice scales did not reach statistical significance for either RVT or SnF. Conclusions: Both SnF and RVT produced positive treatment response in speakers with muscle tension dysphonia, with no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the two treatments. This suggests that SnF is noninferior to RVT and that both are effective options for treating vocal hyperfunction. Results from this study also support previous findings documenting the sensitivity of multidimensional acoustic measurements to treatment response.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)272-282
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume62
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2019

Fingerprint

Dysphonia
Muscle Tonus
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Handicap
acoustics
Therapeutics
Group
Acoustics
therapy group
Randomized Controlled Trial
statistical significance
evaluation
recording
Consensus
confidence
Voice Quality
Therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Intervention outcomes of two treatments for muscle tension dysphonia : A randomized controlled trial. / Watts, Christopher R.; Hamilton, Amy; Toles, Laura; Childs, Lesley F; Mau, I-Fan T.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 62, No. 2, 01.02.2019, p. 272-282.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{603e1086d59b4c42ae4a688bd15d7352,
title = "Intervention outcomes of two treatments for muscle tension dysphonia: A randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that stretch-and-flow voice therapy (SnF) is noninferior to resonant voice therapy (RVT) for speakers with muscle tension dysphonia. Method: Participants with primary muscle tension dysphonia were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants received 6 sessions of either SnF or RVT for 6 weeks (1 session per week). Pretreatment and posttreatment audio recordings of sustained vowels and connected speech were acquired. Response to treatment was assessed using the voice handicap index (VHI) as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included the acoustic voice quality index, the smoothed cepstral peak prominence, and scales from the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice instrument. Data were analyzed for 21 participants who completed the study (12 in the SnF group, 9 in the RVT group). Results: Direction of change for the primary outcome measure and all 3 secondary outcome measures at posttreatment was in the direction of improvement for both SnF and RVT. Confidence intervals for VHI measures did not cross the null effect line on forest plots, suggesting significant effects for both treatments on the primary outcome measure. The effect sizes for pretreatment to posttreatment changes in VHI were large for both treatment groups. Similar results were found for the secondary acoustic outcome measures. There were statistically significant pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary and secondary outcome measures for patients receiving both treatments, indicating significant improvement in response to both RVT and SnF. There were no statistically significant differences in pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary outcome measure or any secondary outcome measure between the two groups. The within-group pretreatment to posttreatment changes in Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice scales did not reach statistical significance for either RVT or SnF. Conclusions: Both SnF and RVT produced positive treatment response in speakers with muscle tension dysphonia, with no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the two treatments. This suggests that SnF is noninferior to RVT and that both are effective options for treating vocal hyperfunction. Results from this study also support previous findings documenting the sensitivity of multidimensional acoustic measurements to treatment response.",
author = "Watts, {Christopher R.} and Amy Hamilton and Laura Toles and Childs, {Lesley F} and Mau, {I-Fan T}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0118",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "272--282",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intervention outcomes of two treatments for muscle tension dysphonia

T2 - A randomized controlled trial

AU - Watts, Christopher R.

AU - Hamilton, Amy

AU - Toles, Laura

AU - Childs, Lesley F

AU - Mau, I-Fan T

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that stretch-and-flow voice therapy (SnF) is noninferior to resonant voice therapy (RVT) for speakers with muscle tension dysphonia. Method: Participants with primary muscle tension dysphonia were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants received 6 sessions of either SnF or RVT for 6 weeks (1 session per week). Pretreatment and posttreatment audio recordings of sustained vowels and connected speech were acquired. Response to treatment was assessed using the voice handicap index (VHI) as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included the acoustic voice quality index, the smoothed cepstral peak prominence, and scales from the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice instrument. Data were analyzed for 21 participants who completed the study (12 in the SnF group, 9 in the RVT group). Results: Direction of change for the primary outcome measure and all 3 secondary outcome measures at posttreatment was in the direction of improvement for both SnF and RVT. Confidence intervals for VHI measures did not cross the null effect line on forest plots, suggesting significant effects for both treatments on the primary outcome measure. The effect sizes for pretreatment to posttreatment changes in VHI were large for both treatment groups. Similar results were found for the secondary acoustic outcome measures. There were statistically significant pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary and secondary outcome measures for patients receiving both treatments, indicating significant improvement in response to both RVT and SnF. There were no statistically significant differences in pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary outcome measure or any secondary outcome measure between the two groups. The within-group pretreatment to posttreatment changes in Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice scales did not reach statistical significance for either RVT or SnF. Conclusions: Both SnF and RVT produced positive treatment response in speakers with muscle tension dysphonia, with no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the two treatments. This suggests that SnF is noninferior to RVT and that both are effective options for treating vocal hyperfunction. Results from this study also support previous findings documenting the sensitivity of multidimensional acoustic measurements to treatment response.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that stretch-and-flow voice therapy (SnF) is noninferior to resonant voice therapy (RVT) for speakers with muscle tension dysphonia. Method: Participants with primary muscle tension dysphonia were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants received 6 sessions of either SnF or RVT for 6 weeks (1 session per week). Pretreatment and posttreatment audio recordings of sustained vowels and connected speech were acquired. Response to treatment was assessed using the voice handicap index (VHI) as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included the acoustic voice quality index, the smoothed cepstral peak prominence, and scales from the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice instrument. Data were analyzed for 21 participants who completed the study (12 in the SnF group, 9 in the RVT group). Results: Direction of change for the primary outcome measure and all 3 secondary outcome measures at posttreatment was in the direction of improvement for both SnF and RVT. Confidence intervals for VHI measures did not cross the null effect line on forest plots, suggesting significant effects for both treatments on the primary outcome measure. The effect sizes for pretreatment to posttreatment changes in VHI were large for both treatment groups. Similar results were found for the secondary acoustic outcome measures. There were statistically significant pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary and secondary outcome measures for patients receiving both treatments, indicating significant improvement in response to both RVT and SnF. There were no statistically significant differences in pretreatment to posttreatment changes in the primary outcome measure or any secondary outcome measure between the two groups. The within-group pretreatment to posttreatment changes in Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice scales did not reach statistical significance for either RVT or SnF. Conclusions: Both SnF and RVT produced positive treatment response in speakers with muscle tension dysphonia, with no statistically significant difference in the outcome measures between the two treatments. This suggests that SnF is noninferior to RVT and that both are effective options for treating vocal hyperfunction. Results from this study also support previous findings documenting the sensitivity of multidimensional acoustic measurements to treatment response.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064166834&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064166834&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0118

DO - 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0118

M3 - Article

C2 - 30950698

AN - SCOPUS:85064166834

VL - 62

SP - 272

EP - 282

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 2

ER -