ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06137131Updated Oct 30, 2024Results posted

Voice Therapy With a Semi-occluded Vocal Tract

An interventional study of Straw phonation in air and straw phonation in water in Voice Disorders, sponsored by University Ghent. Completed at 1 site in Belgium. Open to participants aged 17 Years to 50 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-10-30.

Sponsored by University Ghent · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 2 years after the study started (first participant enrolled Oct 2021, registered Oct 2023).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
58
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
17 Years to 50 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

  1. The first objective of this research is to investigate the immediate effects of three semi-occluded vocal tract (SOVT) exercises (straw phonation in air, straw phonation in 2cm water, and straw phonation in 5cm water) on (supra)glottic activity of vocally healthy participants and patients with voice disorders (dysphonia) visualized with laryngovideostroboscopy.

    Participants will receive a flexible laryngovideostroboscopy, both during normal phonation and during the specific SOVT exercise. These videos will be randomly and blindly evaluated by two experts using the Voice-Vibratory Assessment with Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) rating form (Poburka et al., 2017).

    Researchers will compare the effects of these SOVT exercises on the (supra)glottic activity with the effects found in a control group producing /u/ phonation, using a randomized controlled trial.

  2. The second objective of this research is to investigate the short- and long-term effects of the three SOVT therapy approaches on the (supra)glottic activity, voice quality and self-report of patients with voice disorders (dysphonia).

Participants will receive a short-term intensive therapy with the specific SOVT exercise across four weeks.

Immediately after the therapy program and at 1 and 3 months follow-up, the voice of the participants will be re-evaluated.

02

Conditions studied

  • Voice Disorders

Keywords

  • voice
  • semi-occluded vocal tract
  • larynx
  • randomized controlled trial
  • efficacy study
03

In context

Voice Disorders

77 studies on the registry are indexed under Voice Disorders; 17 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 58 is above the median of 41 across 54 interventional studies indexed under Voice Disorders.

Browse Voice Disorders studies →

Lead sponsor

University Ghent is the lead sponsor of 350 studies on the registry; 86 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
17 Years to 50 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Eligibility criteria

Patients:

Inclusion criteria are aged between 17 and 50 years, and diagnosed with dysphonia by an otorhinolaryngologist and SLP experienced in voice diagnostics. Exclusion criteria are previous or current participation in voice therapy, previous phonosurgical interventions, pregnancy, smoking, nasal or ear diseases, and neurological disorders.

Vocally healthy participants:

Inclusion criteria are aged between 17 and 50 years. Exclusion criteria are dagnosed with dysphonia, previous or current participation in voice therapy, previous phonosurgical interventions, pregnancy, smoking, nasal or ear diseases, and neurological disorders.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
58 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    straw phonation in air

    Participants will be asked to phonate an /u/ vowel through a stirring straw in air with slightly pursed lips and a soft voice onset.

    Behavioral: Straw phonation in air

  • Experimental
    straw phonation in 2 cm water

    Participants will be asked to phonate an /u/ vowel through a stirring straw, placed 2 cm below the water surface, with slightly pursed lips and a soft voice onset.

    Behavioral: straw phonation in water

  • Experimental
    straw phonation in 5 cm water

    Participants will be asked to phonate an /u/ vowel through a stirring straw, placed 5 cm below the water surface, with slightly pursed lips and a soft voice onset.

    Behavioral: straw phonation in water

  • Active comparator
    /u/ control condition

    Participants will be asked to phonate an /u/ vowel with slightly pursed lips and a soft voice onset but without a straw.

    Behavioral: /u/ phonation

Interventions

  • BehavioralStraw phonation in air

    Phonation (/u/ vowel) through a stirring straw (3 mm diameter, 20cm length) in air

    Also known as: steady SOVT exercise

  • Behavioralstraw phonation in water

    Phonation (/u/ vowel) through a stirring straw (3 mm diameter, 20cm length) in 2 cm or 5 cm water

    Also known as: water-resistance therapy, fluctuating SOVT exercise

  • Behavioral/u/ phonation

    /u/ phonation without a straw, control condition

    Also known as: articulatory/steady SOVT exercise

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. (Supra)Glottic Activity: Amplitude of Vibration

    Laryngeal function determined with the Voice-Vibratory Assessment with Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) rating form (Poburka et al., 2017). Amplitude of vibration: magnitude of lateral movement of the vocal folds. This is a visual-perceptual evaluation based on the video samples of the strobovideolaryngoscopy. Raters score the magnitude of lateral movement of the vocal folds based on the graphic of the VALI form ranging from 0 to 10, this number is then multiplied by 10 to obtain a percentage. Lower percentages mean a smaller amplitude of vibration, higher percentages mean a larger amplitude of vibration.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention)

  2. Supraglottic Activity: Anteroposterior Compression

    Laryngeal function determined with the VALI form (Poburka et al, 2017). Anteroposterior supraglottic compression: constriction of the supraglottic structures in the anteroposterior dimension. This is a visual-perceptual evaluation based on the video samples of the strobovideolaryngoscopy. Raters score the supraglottic compression based on the graphic of the VALI form on a scale ranging from 0 to 5 (with the aid of concentric circles). The higher the number, the more supraglottic compression. More supraglottic compression is often seen as a negative outcome, however it might be a beneficial effect seen in SOVT phonation studied here.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Voice Quality Index 1: Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI)

    DSI: A higher index indicates a better voice quality. The index ranges from -5 to +5 for severely dysphonic to normal voices. A more negative index indicates a worse voice quality. Values \> +5 are possible in subjects with excellent vocal capacities. A DSI = +1.6 is the threshold separating normophonic from dysphonic persons.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up

  2. Voice Quality Index 2: Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI)

    A lower AVQI indicates a better voice quality. The index ranges from 0 to 10 for normal to severely dysphonic voices. An AVQI of 2.95 is the threshold separating normophonic from dysphonic persons.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up

  3. Self-report 1: Voice Handicap Index (VHI)

    VHI: A lower index indicates less impact of the voice impairment on the quality of life. The VHI ranges from 0 to 120.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up

  4. Self-report 2: Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale (VTDS)

    VTDS: A lower index indicates less discomfort in the vocal tract. The index ranges from 0 to 96.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up

  5. Self-report 3: Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI)

    VFI: A lower index indicates less vocal fatigue. The index ranges from 0 to 76.

    Time frame: baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up

07

Results

Posted Oct 30, 2024

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
Started15151414
Completed14131312
Not completed1212

Outcome measures

Primary(Supra)Glottic Activity: Amplitude of Vibration

Laryngeal function determined with the Voice-Vibratory Assessment with Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) rating form (Poburka et al., 2017). Amplitude of vibration: magnitude of lateral movement of the vocal folds. This is a visual-perceptual evaluation based on the video samples of the strobovideolaryngoscopy. Raters score the magnitude of lateral movement of the vocal folds based on the graphic of the VALI form ranging from 0 to 10, this number is then multiplied by 10 to obtain a percentage. Lower percentages mean a smaller amplitude of vibration, higher percentages mean a larger amplitude of vibration.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention)
Reported as:
Mean · percentage
(Supra)Glottic Activity: Amplitude of Vibration
percentageStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
SOVT phonation37.7 (33.6 to 41.7)32.5 (28.0 to 37.0)28.8 (24.5 to 33.2)37.1 (32.6 to 41.6)
habitual phonation36.7 (32.6 to 40.7)39.6 (35.1 to 44.1)40.0 (35.6 to 44.4)34.6 (30.1 to 39.1)
PrimarySupraglottic Activity: Anteroposterior Compression

Laryngeal function determined with the VALI form (Poburka et al, 2017). Anteroposterior supraglottic compression: constriction of the supraglottic structures in the anteroposterior dimension. This is a visual-perceptual evaluation based on the video samples of the strobovideolaryngoscopy. Raters score the supraglottic compression based on the graphic of the VALI form on a scale ranging from 0 to 5 (with the aid of concentric circles). The higher the number, the more supraglottic compression. More supraglottic compression is often seen as a negative outcome, however it might be a beneficial effect seen in SOVT phonation studied here.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention)
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Supraglottic Activity: Anteroposterior Compression
units on a scaleStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
SOVT phonation2.6 (1.9 to 3.3)2.3 (1.4 to 3.1)2.9 (2.1 to 3.7)1.3 (0.4 to 2.1)
habitual phonation1.2 (0.5 to 1.9)1.0 (0.2 to 1.8)1.4 (0.7 to 2.2)1.4 (0.7 to 2.3)
SecondaryVoice Quality Index 1: Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI)

DSI: A higher index indicates a better voice quality. The index ranges from -5 to +5 for severely dysphonic to normal voices. A more negative index indicates a worse voice quality. Values \> +5 are possible in subjects with excellent vocal capacities. A DSI = +1.6 is the threshold separating normophonic from dysphonic persons.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Voice Quality Index 1: Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI)
score on a scaleStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
Baseline1.0 (-0.3 to 2.2)1.3 (0.0 to 2.5)0.7 (-2.5 to 2.0)1.0 (-0.3 to 2.2)
1 month (immediately after the intervention)1.7 (0.4 to 3.0)1.2 (-0.3 to 2.4)0.9 (-0.3 to 2.2)0.9 (-0.4 to 2.2)
1 month follow-up2.4 (1.1 to 3.6)3.0 (1.7 to 4.4)2.3 (1.0 to 3.5)1.3 (0.1 to 2.6)
3 months follow-up2.3 (1.1 to 3.6)2.5 (1.2 to 3.9)1.9 (0.7 to 3.2)1.5 (0.1 to 2.9)
SecondaryVoice Quality Index 2: Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI)

A lower AVQI indicates a better voice quality. The index ranges from 0 to 10 for normal to severely dysphonic voices. An AVQI of 2.95 is the threshold separating normophonic from dysphonic persons.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Voice Quality Index 2: Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI)
score on a scaleStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
baseline3.63 (3.07 to 4.20)3.69 (3.12 to 4.25)4.12 (3.56 to 4.69)3.70 (3.14 to 4.27)
1 month3.86 (3.30 to 4.43)3.12 (2.56 to 3.69)3.73 (3.17 to 4.30)3.41 (2.84 to 3.97)
1 month follow-up3.64 (3.08 to 4.21)3.22 (2.63 to 3.80)3.74 (3.17 to 4.30)3.57 (2.99 to 4.16)
3 months follow-up3.84 (3.27 to 4.40)3.22 (2.64 to 3.81)3.86 (3.29 to 4.42)3.15 (2.53 to 3.76)
SecondarySelf-report 1: Voice Handicap Index (VHI)

VHI: A lower index indicates less impact of the voice impairment on the quality of life. The VHI ranges from 0 to 120.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Self-report 1: Voice Handicap Index (VHI)
score on a scaleStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
baseline9 (1 to 17)12 (4 to 20)19 (11 to 27)13 (5 to 20)
1 month7 (0 to 15)12 (4 to 20)17 (9 to 24)13 (5 to 21)
1 month follow-up9 (1 to 16)11 (3 to 19)18 (10 to 25)9 (1 to 17)
3 months follow-up11 (3 to 19)16 (8 to 24)18 (10 to 25)11 (3 to 19)
SecondarySelf-report 2: Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale (VTDS)

VTDS: A lower index indicates less discomfort in the vocal tract. The index ranges from 0 to 96.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Self-report 2: Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale (VTDS)
score on a scaleStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
baseline16 (7 to 25)21 (12 to 30)25 (16 to 34)16 (6 to 25)
1 month13 (4 to 22)19 (10 to 28)21 (12 to 30)16 (7 to 25)
1 month follow-up13 (3 to 22)16 (7 to 25)19 (10 to 28)21 (12 to 30)
3 months follow-up13 (4 to 22)18 (9 to 27)20 (11 to 29)12 (2 to 21)
SecondarySelf-report 3: Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI)

VFI: A lower index indicates less vocal fatigue. The index ranges from 0 to 76.

Time frame:
baseline (before the intervention), 1 month (immediately after the intervention), 1 month follow-up, 3 months follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Self-report 3: Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI)
score on a scaleStraw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control Condition
baseline14 (8 to 20)20 (14 to 26)19 (13 to 25)15 (9 to 21)
1 month11 (5 to 17)14 (8 to 20)16 (10 to 22)15 (9 to 21)
1 month follow-up11 (5 to 16)12 (6 to 18)17 (11 to 23)14 (8 to 20)
3 months follow-up13 (7 to 19)17 (11 to 23)19 (13 to 25)15 (9 to 22)

Adverse events

Collected over 3 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Straw Phonation in Air0/14 (0%)0/14 (0%)0/14 (0%)
Straw Phonation in 2 cm Water0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)
Straw Phonation in 5 cm Water0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)0/13 (0%)
/u/ Control Condition0/12 (0%)0/12 (0%)0/12 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
<=18 years00000
Between 18 and 65 years1515141458
>=65 years00000
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
Mean18.7 (17 to 20)18.7 (17 to 20)18.7 (17 to 20)18.7 (17 to 20)18.7 (17 to 20)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
Female1515141458
Male00000
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected(Participants)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
Count of participants————0
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
Belgium1515141458
smoking
smoking(Participants)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
Count of participants10001
organic vocal fold pathology
organic vocal fold pathology(Participants)Straw Phonation in AirStraw Phonation in 2 cm WaterStraw Phonation in 5 cm Water/u/ Control ConditionTotal
Count of participants01113
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University (Hospital)
    Ghent, East-Flanders 9000, Belgium
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Oct 2021 to primary completion in Mar 2023, 17 months.

Results were first posted in Oct 2024, 1 year 7 months after primary completion.

Of 30 interventional studies with no phase under Voice Disorders, half reached primary completion within 37 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 48. This study's 17 months is below that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 20, 2023
First posted
Nov 18, 2023
StartActual
Oct 7, 2021
Primary completionActual
Mar 14, 2023
CompletionActual
Mar 14, 2023
Results first posted
Oct 30, 2024
Last update
Oct 30, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 30, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06137131
Lead sponsor
University Ghent
Collaborators
Research Foundation Flanders
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 18, 2023
Start date
Oct 7, 2021
Primary completion
Mar 14, 2023
Completion
Mar 14, 2023
Results posted
Oct 30, 2024
Last update
Oct 30, 2024

Study contacts

Kristiane Van Lierde, PhD
principal investigator · University Ghent

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion