| Title |
The voice quality after laser surgery versus radiotherapy of T1a glottic carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s137210 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guanjiang Huang, Mengsi Luo, Jingxuan Zhang, Hongbing Liu |
| Abstract |
The voice quality assessment of laser surgery (LS) in comparison with radiotherapy (RT) remains uncertain in T1a glottic carcinoma treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the voice quality of the two treatments. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane with the following index words: glotti*, layn*, vocal cord, vocal, surgery, cordectomy, laser, radiation, irradiation, radiotherapy, cancer, and carcinoma for relative studies that compared the voice quality between LS and RT. Random-effect models were used, and heterogeneity was assessed. A total of 14 studies were included in the analysis, consisting of 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 prospective study, and 12 retrospective studies. RT has increased the maximum phonation time (MPT; mean difference [MD] =-1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] =-3.66 to -0.11, P=0.04) and decreased the fundamental frequency (MD =14.06, 95% CI =10.30-17.83, P<0.00001) in comparison with LS. No statistical difference was observed between the two groups in terms of Voice Handicap Index, Jitter, Shimmer, and airflow rate. RT may be a better choice for T1a glottic carcinoma treatment compared with LS because patients undergoing RT may have the advantage of increased MPT and decreased fundamental frequency. However, more multicenter, randomized, controlled trials are urgently needed to verify these differences. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 62% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,174
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#60
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.