000			02957 am a22002413u 4500
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aLamb, Jim R. _eauthor _9954
700	1	0	_aSchultz, Sarah A. _eauthor _9955
700	1	0	_aScholp, Austin J. _eauthor _9956
700	1	0	_aWendel, Emily R. _eauthor _9957
700	1	0	_aJiang, Jack J. _eauthor _9958
245	0	0	_aRetest reliability for complete airway interruption systems of aerodynamic measurement
260			_c2020-04-04.
500			_a/pmc/articles/PMC7541393/
500			_a/pubmed/32253079
520			_aINTRODUCTION: Measures of subglottal pressure (Ps), phonation threshold pressure (PTP), and laryngeal resistance (LR) can be used as indicators of vocal cord disorders. The gold standard non-invasive measurement uses labial interruption, which has been shown to have reliability inconsistencies. Mechanical interruption methods have demonstrated promise in measurement reliability. The goal of the present study is to compare retest reliability of labial and mechanical interruption methods. METHODS: 55 subjects aged 18-69 participated. 10 trials were performed for each method. For labial interruption, subjects produced five labial plosives at comfortable and quiet volumes. For mechanical interruption, subjects produced a sustained /α/ while a balloon valve interrupted phonation five times. 30 subjects completed a second study visit identical to the first approximately two weeks (15 days ± 3.76) after the first visit. Ps, PTP, mean airflow rate (MFR), and LR were determined for each subject and retest reliability for each was analyzed. RESULTS: The percent difference in measurement results for test-retest of Ps were 12.88% ± 10.15 for mechanical interruption and 27.56% ± 17.14 for labial interruption (p = 0.0003). The percent difference for PTP measurements were 21.46% ± 16.01 for mechanical and 17.04% ± 14.62 (p = 0.3372) for labial. Intra-subject coefficients of variation of Ps were 0.086 ± 0.046 for mechanical and 0.161 ± 0.078 for labial (p < 0.0001). For PTP, the coefficients were 0.177 ± 0.083 for mechanical and 0.186 ± 0.091 for labial (p = 0.5402). Lastly, for LR (Ps divided by MFR) the percent differences were 14.33% ± 10.06 for mechanical and 53.87% ± 43.19 for labial (p < 0.0001) with intra-subject variability of 0.115 ± 0.050 for mechanical and 0.287 ± 0.222 for labial (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Ps and LR measured using mechanical interruption showed more consistency for both retesting across separate study visits and intra-subject variability. PTP was similar in retesting and intra-subject variability. Continued work to improve mechanical interruption techniques is warranted as these methods offer higher reliability and consistency than the labial interruption methods.
540			_a
546			_aen
690			_aArticle
655	7		_aText _2local
786	0		_nJ Voice
856	4	1	_uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.02.024 _zConnect to this object online.
999			_c1619 _d1619