Seven Days of Voice Rest Post‐phonosurgery Is Not Better than 3 days: A Prospective Randomized Short‐term Outcome Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare the short-term effect of 7 versus 3 days of voice rest (VR) on objective vocal (acoustic) parameters following phonosurgery. METHODS: A prospective randomized study conducted at a tertiary referral medical center. Patients with vocal fold nodules, polyps, or cysts and scheduled for phonosurgery were recruited from the Voice Clinic. They were randomized into groups of 7- or 3-day postoperative VR periods and their voices were recorded preoperatively and at 4-week postoperatively. A mixed linear model statistical analysis (MLMSA) was used to compare pre- and postoperative jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio, and maximum phonation time between the two groups. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were recruited, but only 34 fully complied with the study protocol, and their data were included in the final analysis (19 males, 20 females; mean age: 40.6 years; 17 patients in the 7-day VR group and 16 in the 3-day VR group). The groups were comparable in age, sex, and type of vocal lesion distribution. The preoperative MLMSA showed no significant group differences in the tested vocal parameters. Both groups exhibited significant (p < 0.05) and comparable improvement in all vocal parameters at postoperative week 4. CONCLUSIONS: A VR duration of 7 days showed no greater benefit on the examined vocal parameters than the 3-day protocol 4-week postoperatively. Our results suggest that a 3-day VR regimen can be followed by patients who undergo phonosurgery without compromising the vocal results. Larger-scale and longer-duration studies are needed to confirm our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 134:4661-4666, 2024.
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 | 0.002 | 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".