The CSID demonstrated a strong ability (AUC 0.85) to differentiate between dysphonia-positive and dysphonia-negative subjects as determined by auditory-perceptual judgment. A combination of logistic regression and ROC analyses was used to compare the classification of the CSID with the three reference standards. The CSID was used to determine dysphonia severity during subjects’ readings of The Rainbow Passage (CSID).
Three reference standards were used to differentiate cases from controls: auditory-perceptual judgment (dysphonia +/-), Voice Handicap Score (VHI +/-), and laryngoscopic/stroboscopic diagnosis (laryngoscopic +/-). The study included 332 subjects, all of whom had presented to a physician with a voice complaint. conducted a case-control study to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the CSID as compared to other methods, such as patients’ self-perception of their voice handicaps or physician-conducted laryngeal evaluations. Recently, spectral- and cepstral-based acoustic methods, particularly when combined into the CSID multivariate formula, have shown promise as potential dysphonia screening tools for their low cost, efficiency, and robust results. On the contrary, a variety of imperfect reference standards are employed to differentiate between “non-voice-disordered” and “voice-disordered” patients, or “controls” versus “cases,” respectively. In contrast to other medical specialties, the field of voice disorders lacks a “gold standard” method for diagnosing disorders of interest. The utility of clinical cutoff scores for the CSID is also discussed. This article examines the CSID as a potential screening tool for voice disorders. Awan, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, winner of the 2016 “Journal of Voice Best Paper Award” in the Speech-Language Pathology/Vocal Pedagogy category, awarded at the Annual Symposium in June 2017. The following blog post discusses findings presented in an award-winning article by Dr.
0 kommentar(er)
