SummaryObjectives Functional voice disorders are the most common laryngeal disorder, occurring as primary disorders or secondary to organic causes, and are typically managed with voice therapy. Frequently, dysphonia (abnormal overall voice quality) is present as a main symptom. Expert perceptual ratings are considered the gold standard for evaluation. Multiple voice therapy approaches exist, but there is no comprehensive evidence to rank their efficacy. Design Our study design was a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and manual sources were searched from inception to June 2025. Study Selection Two reviewers screened for randomized controlled trials evaluating voice therapy approaches or placebo/no treatment in patients with functional voice disorders and dysphonia symptoms using ordinal/analog perceptual ratings of overall voice quality severity. Data Extraction and Synthesis Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Mean differences were pooled using a frequentist, graph-theoretical network meta-analysis with random effects. Main Outcome and Measures In this study, ratings of perceived overall voice quality (equal-appearing interval EAI or visual-analog scales) were converted to a 4-point EAI scale (0 = normal, 1=slight, 2=moderate, 3=severe). Results A total of 30 randomized clinical trials (N = 1210 patients) were included comparing 24 voice treatments and a control group (no treatment or placebo). The risk of bias ranged from low to high. No significant publication bias was detected. Some data inconsistencies were observed. Although overall heterogeneity was minimal, a small degree of low heterogeneity cannot be entirely excluded. Assessment of heterogeneity within the network also revealed no significant inconsistency. The most effective and significant therapy was an eclectic approach by considering vocal hygiene, manual therapy, facilitating techniques (FT) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (−1.97 95% CI, −2.97 to −0.97). Variants of this approach including the same methods without TENS, as well as FT, Manual Circumlaryngeal Therapy, the Comprehensive Voice Rehabilitation Program, Vocal Function Exercises, Tube in Air Phonation, Water Resistance Therapy (WRT), a combination of WRT and Accent Method, and traditional voice therapy in on-one-on sessions also showed significant improvements. The level of certainty ranged from high to very low. Conclusions In this network meta-analysis of patients with functional voice disorders, 10 of 24 voice therapy approaches significantly reduced dysphonia.
Latoszek et al. (Sun,) studied this question.