Association Between Subjective Voice Assessment and Psychological Distress After Thyroidectomy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the association between postoperative subjective voice function and psychological distress in patients without laryngeal nerve injury after thyroidectomy. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. METHODS: We investigated the factors associated with subjective voice function in patients who underwent thyroidectomy without laryngeal nerve injury between October 2018 and July 2020. The Voice Handicap Index was used to assess subjective voice function, the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain) scale to assess objective voice, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess psychological distress. FINDINGS: Among 39 patients who underwent thyroidectomy, 32 had no postoperative laryngeal nerve injury. Postoperative Voice Handicap Index was significantly associated with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety score after surgery (rs = 0.448, P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, an association was observed between subjective voice function and anxiety following surgery. The finding suggested that nurses and medical practitioners need to consider postoperative anxiety when evaluating patients' voice function after thyroidectomy.

Correction to: Voice rehabilitation for laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In the original publication of the article, the reference 14 was published incorrectly. The correct reference is given below.

Correction: Rehabilitation for patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201292.].

Voice rehabilitation for laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether voice rehabilitation after radiotherapy improves the quality of life (QOL), voice function, and self-rated voice function in patients with laryngeal cancer. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials published between inception and October 2018. The primary outcome was QOL, adverse events and mortality. Secondary outcomes included voice function and self-rated voice function. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Three trials (enrolling 122 patients) compared voice rehabilitation to usual care or no intervention after radiotherapy. Voice rehabilitation did not significantly improve any QOL scores. Data on adverse events and mortality were not available in any of the trials. Voice rehabilitation did not improve any voice function scores, such as jitter (mean difference: - 0.48 [- 1.27 to 0.32]), shimmer (mean difference: - 0.04 [- 0.27 to 0.19]), maximum phonation time (mean difference: 1.54 [- 1.13 to 4.22]), and the grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, and strain scale (mean difference: - 0.39 [- 2.59 to 1.80]). Voice rehabilitation also did not improve the voice handicap index, which was used as a self-rated voice function score (mean difference: 5.54 [- 2.07 to 13.16]). The certainty of the evidence was graded as low for primary and secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Voice rehabilitation for patients with laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy might not improve QOL, voice function, and self-rated voice function. Pre-specified voice rehabilitation programs may not be necessary for all patients with laryngeal cancer after radiotherapy.

Rehabilitation for patients with sepsis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether rehabilitation impacts clinically relevant outcomes among adult patients with sepsis. Randomized controlled trials from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PEDro, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, as well as conference proceedings and reference lists of relevant articles were collected. Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials on the rehabilitation of patients with sepsis, and the two reviewers independently abstracted trial level data including population characteristics, interventions, comparisons, and clinical outcomes. Our primary outcomes were quality of life (QOL), activity of daily living (ADL), and mortality. Our secondary outcomes were length of stay, return to work, muscle strength, delirium, and all adverse events. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included two trials enrolling 75 patients. The mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of physical function and physical role in QOL measured by SF-36 were 21.10 (95% CI: 6.57-35.63) and 44.40 (95% CI: 22.55-66.05), respectively. Rehabilitation did not significantly decrease intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (risk ratio, 2.02 [95% CI: 0.46-8.91], I2 = 0%; n = 75). ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay and muscle strength were not statistically significantly different and no adverse events were reported in both studies. The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was "very low." Data on ADL, return to work, and delirium were not available in any of the trials. Rehabilitation of patients with sepsis might not decrease ICU mortality, but might improve QOL. Further, well-designed trials measuring important outcomes will be needed to determine the benefit and harm of rehabilitation among patients with sepsis.