Merati Albert L, Halum Stacey L, Smith Timothy L
Division of Laryngology, Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences and Zablocki VAMC, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Laryngoscope. 2006 Sep;116(9):1539-52. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000234937.46306.c2.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Vocal fold paralysis continues to be a dominant topic in laryngology. Although the majority of cases can be attributed to a known etiology, a significant number of patients present without a clear precipitating event. Over 1,500 studies regarding vocal fold paralysis exist in the medical literature, although only a small percentage report on the use of serum or radiographic testing for the evaluation of idiopathic paralysis. Despite this, patients are routinely subjected to diagnostic evaluation to investigate the underlying cause. To characterize contemporary practice, a national survey of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) membership was undertaken. It is hypothesized that the current practice of diagnostic testing for idiopathic vocal fold paralysis is not well supported by an evidence-based medicine (EBM) review of the available medical literature.
The authors conducted a national survey, systematic EBM review of existing literature.
Surveys were mailed to all active ABEA members; responses regarding practice specialization as well as serum/radiographic diagnostic preferences for idiopathic vocal fold paralysis were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. To compare contemporary practice with evidence in the available literature, an EBM review was first performed. Articles for evaluation were selected from a Medline search of English-language abstracts related to adult vocal fold paralysis. The publications were individually reviewed and an EBM level and grade were assigned and compared with the survey results.
Eighty-four of 249 active members responded with 76 (31%) replies submitted for analysis. Specific serum tests were advocated by 41 of 76 (54%) respondents, although the majority (52 of 65 [80%]) felt that they were only "occasionally" or "never" necessary. The most common tests were rheumatoid factor (38%), Lyme titer (36%), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (34%), and antinuclear antibody (33%). Fifty-one of 71(72%) felt that computed tomography (CT) was "always" or "often" necessary and 50 of 72 (69%) replied that chest radiography (CXR) was "always" or "often" necessary. There was no significant difference between CT and CXR ordering (P < .51). In contrast, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was described as "always" or "often" necessary in 28 of 71 (39%) of the surveys, significantly less than CT (P < .0001). There was no statistical impact of practice specialization on ordering of serum tests (P = .25) or imaging (P = .50 for CT; P = .46 for CXR; P = .45 for MRI). Following analysis of 1,510 vocal fold paralysis abstracts, 19 publications were found to be appropriate for an EBM review of serum testing with 15 available for review of radiographic imaging. Only one study presented level III evidence; the remainder were levels IV and V comprised of retrospective series and case reports. The evidence supporting serum or radiographic testing toward the evaluation of idiopathic vocal fold paralysis is given an overall grade of "C."
Serum and radiographic testing for the evaluation of vocal fold paralysis is supported by grade "C" evidence only. There are no existing prospective studies estimating the clinical impact of testing on diagnosis or patient outcome. Current practice, as estimated by a survey of the ABEA membership, is not well founded for serum testing and only by retrospective case series with regard to imaging. Further study into the nature of idiopathic vocal fold paralysis and outcomes assessment of diagnostic paradigms may improve clinical practice.
目的/假设:声带麻痹仍是喉科学中的一个主要话题。尽管大多数病例可归因于已知病因,但仍有相当数量的患者在无明确诱发事件的情况下发病。医学文献中有超过1500项关于声带麻痹的研究,不过只有一小部分报告了使用血清或影像学检查来评估特发性麻痹。尽管如此,患者仍需接受常规诊断评估以探究潜在病因。为了描述当代的诊疗实践,我们对美国支气管食管协会(ABEA)的成员进行了一项全国性调查。我们假设,现有医学文献的循证医学(EBM)综述并未有力支持目前针对特发性声带麻痹的诊断性检查实践。
作者进行了一项全国性调查,并对现有文献进行了系统的循证医学综述。
向所有ABEA在职成员邮寄调查问卷;将关于执业专科以及特发性声带麻痹的血清/影像学诊断偏好的回复进行列表统计并进行统计分析。为了将当代诊疗实践与现有文献中的证据进行比较,首先进行了循证医学综述。用于评估的文章是从对与成人生带麻痹相关的英文摘要的Medline搜索中选取的。对这些出版物进行逐一评审,并给出循证医学级别和等级,然后与调查结果进行比较。
249名在职成员中有84人回复,其中76份(31%)回复用于分析。76名受访者中有41人(54%)主张进行特定的血清检查,尽管大多数人(65人中的52人[80%])认为这些检查只是“偶尔”或“从不”必要。最常用的检查是类风湿因子(38%)、莱姆病滴度(36%)、红细胞沉降率(34%)和抗核抗体(33%)。71人中有51人(72%)认为计算机断层扫描(CT)“总是”或“经常”必要,72人中有50人(69%)回复胸部X线摄影(CXR)“总是”或“经常”必要。CT和CXR检查的医嘱开具情况无显著差异(P <.51)。相比之下,71份调查问卷中有28份(39%)将磁共振成像(MRI)描述为“总是”或“经常”必要,显著低于CT(P <.0001)。执业专科对血清检查医嘱开具情况(P =.25)或影像学检查(CT的P =.50;CXR的P =.46;MRI的P =.45)没有统计学影响。在对1510篇声带麻痹摘要进行分析后,发现有19篇出版物适合进行血清检查的循证医学综述,有15篇可用于影像学检查的综述。只有一项研究提供了III级证据;其余的是IV级和V级,包括回顾性系列研究和病例报告。支持血清或影像学检查用于评估特发性声带麻痹的证据总体等级为“C”。
用于评估声带麻痹的血清和影像学检查仅得到“C”级证据的支持。目前尚无前瞻性研究评估这些检查对诊断或患者预后的临床影响。根据对ABEA成员的调查估计,目前的血清检查实践缺乏充分依据,而影像学检查仅依据回顾性病例系列研究。对特发性声带麻痹的本质以及诊断模式的预后评估进行进一步研究可能会改善临床实践。