RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A challenge for clinicians and researchers in laryngology is a lack of international consensus for an agreed framework to classify homogenous groups of voice disorders. Consistency in terminology and agreement in how conditions are classified will provide greater clarity for clinicians and researchers. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to examine the published literature on frameworks, terminology, and criteria for the classification of voice disorders. DESIGN: Seven online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Collaboration, Web of Science) and grey literature sources were searched. Studies published from 1940 to 2021 were included if they provided a descriptive detail of a classification framework structure and described the methodological approaches to determine classification. A narrative synthesis of the main concepts including terminology, classification criteria, grouping of conditions, critical appraisal items and gaps in research was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 2,675 publications were screened. Twenty sources met inclusion criteria, including published articles and grey literature. Thirty-five classification groups and over 150 sub-groups were described. The classification group labels, and criteria for inclusion of conditions varied across the frameworks. Several key themes in terminology and criteria useful for classification are discussed, and a core set of suggested terms and definitions are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of research on classification frameworks for voice disorders is low and not one system encompasses all voice disorders across the whole spectrum. Continued high quality research using consensus methodology and inter-rater reliability scores is recommended to develop and test an internationally agreed classification framework for voice disorders.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to examine the literature on the terminology and descriptions for the broad classification of voice disorders, and outline the criteria described to guide clinicians in differential classification. INTRODUCTION: The process of classifying the etiology of voice disorders is complex. A key challenge for clinicians and researchers is a lack of consensus on agreed terminology to define umbrella terms commonly used in the published literature. Consistency in the terminology for voice disorder classification, and well-defined conditions within those groups, will provide greater clarity for clinicians and researchers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished literature that include participants (adults and children) diagnosed with a voice disorder using any criteria or framework will be considered. Studies will be included provided they give a descriptive detail of the structure of the classification system and describe a methodological approach to determine classification criteria. Studies will be excluded if they include animal models or participants with alaryngeal speech, elective mutism, or resonance disorders. METHODS: The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science. Studies will be limited to those published in English from 1940 to present. Two independent reviewers will screen the retrieved articles against the eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis of the main concepts will include classification terminology, classification criteria, commonly described specific diagnoses within the groups, test measures used to determine criteria, critical appraisal items, and gaps in research.