RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The first goal of this study was to investigate the coverage of laryngeal structures using two potential administration techniques for synthetic mucus: inhalation and lozenge ingestion. As a second research question, the study investigated the potential effects of these techniques on standardized voice assessment parameters. METHODS: Fluorescein was added to throat lozenges and to an inhalation solution to visualize the coverage of laryngeal structures through blue light imaging. The study included 70 vocally healthy subjects. Fifty subjects underwent administration via lozenge ingestion and 20 subjects performed the inhalation process. For the first research question, the recordings from the blue light imaging system were categorized to compare the extent of coverage on individual laryngeal structures objectively. Secondly, a standardized voice evaluation protocol was performed before and after each administration to determine any measurable effects of typical voice parameters. RESULTS: The administration via inhalation demonstrated complete coverage of all laryngeal structures, including the vocal folds, ventricular folds, and arytenoid cartilages, as visualized by the fluorescent dye. In contrast, the application of the lozenge predominantly covered the pharynx and laryngeal surface toward the aryepiglottic fold, but not the inferior structures. All in all, the comparison before and after administration showed no clear effect, although a minor deterioration of the acoustic signal was noted in the shimmer and cepstral peak prominence after the inhalation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the inhalation process is a more effective technique for covering deeper laryngeal structures such as the vocal folds and ventricular folds with synthetic mucus. This knowledge enables further in vivo studies on the role of laryngeal mucus in phonation in general, and how it can be substituted or supplemented for patients with reduced glandular activity as well as for heavy voice users.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Approximately seven to nine percent of couples of reproductive age do not get pregnant despite regular and unprotected sexual intercourse. Various psychosocial interventions for women and men with fertility disorders are repeatedly found in the literature. The effects of these interventions on outcomes such as anxiety and depression, as well as on the probability of pregnancy, do not currently allow for reliable generalisable statements. This review includes studies published since 2015 performing a method-critical evaluation of the studies. Furthermore, we suggest how interventions could be implemented in the future to improve anxiety, depression, and pregnancy rates. METHOD: The project was registered with Prospero (CRD42021242683 13 April 2021). The literature search was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six databases were searched and 479 potential studies were discovered. After reviewing the full texts, ten studies were included for the synthesis. Not all studies reported the three outcomes: four studies each for depression, three for anxiety and nine studies for pregnancy rates were included in the meta-analysis, which was conducted using the Comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software. RESULTS: Psychosocial interventions do not significantly change women's anxiety (Hedges' g -0,006; CI: -0,667 to 0,655; p = 0,985), but they have a significant impact on depression in infertile women (Hedges' g -0,893; CI: -1,644 to -0,145; p = 0,026). Implementations of psychosocial interventions during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment do not increase pregnancy rates (odds ratio 1,337; 95% CI 0,983 to 1,820; p = 0,064). The methodological critical evaluation indicates heterogeneous study design and samples. The results of the studies were determined with different methods and make comparability difficult. All these factors do not allow for a uniform conclusion. METHODOLOGICAL CRITICAL EVALUATION: Study design (duration and timing of intervention, type of intervention, type of data collection) and samples (age of women, reason for infertility, duration of infertility) are very heterogeneous. The results of the studies were determined with different methods and make comparability difficult. All these factors do not allow for a uniform conclusion. CONCLUSION: In order to be able to better compare psychosocial interventions and their influence on ART treatment and thus also to achieve valid results, a standardised procedure to the mentioned factors is necessary.
