MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412521818 · doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.06.032

Pitch Alteration Techniques for Transgender Women: A Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Approaches

2025· review· en· W4412521818 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raisa Chowdhury, Jennifer A. Silver, Eleni Philippopoulos, Karen Kost

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Voice · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLMeta-analysisMEDLINECochrane LibraryPerioperativePhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical pitch elevation techniques in transgender women using acoustic outcomes and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comprehensive searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and gray literature were completed through January 2025. Included studies involved transgender women (≥18 years) undergoing pitch elevation via surgical (Wendler glottoplasty [WG], cricothyroid approximation [CTA], vocal fold shortening and retrodisplacement of the anterior commissure [VFSRAC], and laser-assisted voice adjustment [LAVA]), laser-reduction glottoplasty [LRG], nonsurgical (voice therapy [VT]), or combination approaches. Eligible studies reported both changes in fundamental frequency (F0) and validated PROMs, such as the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) or Trans Woman Voice Questionnaire (TWVQ). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized narratively with weighted means calculated for key outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (N = 977) were included. VFSRAC yielded the highest mean F0 increase (+73.3 Hz), followed by WG (+54.1 Hz), VT (+39.9 Hz), CTA (+30.3 Hz), and LAVA (+26 Hz). WG + VT showed comparable F0 gains (+54.5 Hz) with more consistent outcomes. TWVQ scores improved most with WG + VT (-47.9), followed by WG (-29.0) and VT (-18.7). VHI scores improved most with LAVA (-48.0) and WG (-21.7); VFSRAC and CTA showed modest PROM improvements. Adverse events, including granuloma and vocal fatigue, were more common with surgical combinations. Follow-up ranged from 2 weeks to 4.4 years, with most studies reporting 6-12 months. CONCLUSION: Surgical and nonsurgical interventions both elevate pitch and improve voice-related quality of life. Surgery provides greater F0 gains, while combining VT enhances patient satisfaction. Findings support individualized care and the need for standardized PROMs in future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VoiceSame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207