ReviewMaedica2025
Laryngeal Morphology in Voice Disorders: a Review of Imaging and Endoscopic Findings.
Review in Maedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laryngeal Anatomy and Morphometry: Foundations for Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Personalized Management of Laryngeal Pathology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Laryngostroboscopic Screening in Asymptomatic Adults Undergoing Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Prospective Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This review aimed to synthesize and analyze morphological changes of the larynx in patients with voice disorders, as identified through imaging and endoscopic methods, and to evaluate their diagnostic value. Materials and methods: We performed a comprehensive PubMed search using MeSH and Title/Abstract keywords related to laryngeal morphology, voice disorders and imaging modalities. Filters restricted results to human studies in adults which were published as full text, in English, during the last 10 years. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria after screening and were included for analysis. Data on imaging modalities, morphological features, diagnostic accuracy and correlations with voice function were extracted. Results: Across the 17 studies, imaging revealed morphological features such as vocal fold edema, nodules, polyps, motion impairment, glottal insufficiency and arytenoid asymmetry. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated significant correlations between vocal cord thickening, impaired adduction and dysphonia severity. High-speed videoendoscopy and stroboscopy showed good sensitivity (up to 92%) and specificity (79.2%) for identifying motion impairment and dysphonia classification. Some structural findings, such as arytenoid asymmetry in singers, did not correlate with acoustic deficits. Conclusions: Imaging and endoscopic evaluations provide valuable diagnostic insights into voice disorders, though variability in protocols and outcome measures limits cross-study comparability. Standardization of imaging methods and reporting is essential for improving diagnostic reproducibility and clinical applicability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.