The Use of Speaking Valves in Children With Tracheostomy Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One-way speaking valves have been successfully used to restore audible meaningful speech in adult patients after tracheostomy tube placement. One-way speaking valves have also been used in pediatric patients after tracheostomy tube placement with promising results. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize and summarize the current evidence on the use of one-way tracheostomy tube speaking valves in the pediatric population to identify knowledge gaps that could inform future research programs and facilitate evidence-based clinical decision making. The Arksey and O'Malley 5-step methodological framework was used for this scoping review. We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Google Scholar to locate articles published between January 1, 1946 and May 26, 2016. Our search resulted in a total of 524 articles. After removing 270 duplicates, we screened 254 abstracts, and 50 articles were identified for full text review. We excluded 38 references. A total of 12 articles met our inclusion criteria. Details of all studies were charted. Application of the Sackett levels of evidence to evaluate the qualitative strength of the evidence provided by the 12 articles selected for study found that 6 studies were level 5, 4 were level 4, and 2 studies were categorized as level 3 evidence. Eligibility criteria for trials of speaking valves were inconsistent across all studies and included a combination of clinical assessment coupled with published indications. Much of the literature has focused on tolerance/successful use of speaking valves in children with a tracheostomy with limited evidence on its impact on verbal communication. Current evidence on the use of speaking valves in children with a tracheostomy, its indication, and its impact on verbal communication is inadequate, mandating further research in this area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".