Purpose Over the last 5 decades, many acoustic measures have been created to measure roughness and breathiness. The aim of this study is to present a meta-analysis of correlation coefficients (r) between auditory-perceptual judgment of roughness and breathiness and various acoustic measures in both sustained vowels and continuous speech. Method Scientific literature reporting perceptual–acoustic correlations on roughness and breathiness were sought in 28 databases. Weighted average correlation coefficients (r w) were calculated when multiple r-values were available for a specific acoustic marker. An r w ≥ .60 was the threshold for an acoustic measure to be considered acceptable. Results From 103 studies of roughness and 107 studies of breathiness that were investigated, only 33 studies and 34 studies, respectively, met the inclusion criteria of the meta-analysis on sustained vowels. Eighty-six acoustic measures were identified for roughness and 85 acoustic measures for breathiness on sustained vowels, in which 43 and 39 measures, respectively, yielded multiple r-values. Finally, only 14 measures for roughness and 12 measures for breathiness produced r w ≥ .60. On continuous speech, 4 measures for roughness and 21 measures for breathiness were identified, yielding 3 and 6 measures, respectively, with multiple r-values in which only 1 and 2, respectively, had r w ≥ .60. Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that only a few acoustic parameters were determined as the best estimators for roughness and breathiness.
AbstractObjective: Many older individuals receive rehabilitation in an out-of-hospital setting (OOHS) after acute hospitalization; however, its effect onmobility and unplanned hospital readmission is unclear. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on this topic.Data Sources: Medline OVID, Embase OVID, and CINAHL were searched from their inception until February 22, 2018.Study Selection: OOHS (ie, skilled nursing facilities, outpatient clinics, or community-based at home) randomized trials studying the effect ofmultidisciplinary rehabilitation were selected, including those assessing exercise in older patients (mean age 65y) after discharge from hospitalafter an acute illness.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed independent data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias.Outcomes were pooled using fixed- or random-effect models as appropriate. The main outcomes were mobility at and unplanned hospitalreadmission within 3 months of discharge.Data Synthesis: A total of 15 studies (1255 patients) were included in the systematic review and 12 were included in the meta-analysis (7assessing mobility using the 6-minute walk distance [6MWD] test and 7 assessing unplanned hospital readmission). Based on the 6MWD, patientsreceiving rehabilitation walked an average of 23 m more than controls (95% confidence interval [CI]Z: 1.34 to 48.32; I2: 51%). Rehabilitationdid not lower the 3-month risk of unplanned hospital readmission (risk ratio: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.73-1.19; I2: 34%). The risk of bias was present,mainly due to the nonblinded outcome assessment in 3 studies, and 7 studies scored this unclearly.Conclusion: OOHS-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation leads to improved mobility in older patients 3 months after they are discharged fromhospital following an acute illness and is not associated with a lower risk of unplanned hospital readmission within 3 months of discharge.However, the wide 95% CIs indicate that the evidence is not robust.
Background: An effective and tolerable bowel preparation is important to secure quality of colonoscopies. It remains unclear if sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), which is considered a tolerable bowel preparation agent, is also an effective alternative for polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium phosphate (NaP). Aim: The aim of this article is to compare effectiveness of SPMC to PEG and NaP through assessment of quality of bowel cleansing measured by validated tools. Methods: We searched electronic databases up to January 2015. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently performed selection of studies, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Results: Thirteen RCTs were included, with overall good quality, but large heterogeneity. SPMC had slightly better quality of bowel cleansing than PEG (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11). In most trials SPMC was significantly better tolerated than PEG. There were no significant differences in effectiveness or tolerability between SPMC and NaP. Side effects were similar between agents, except for dizziness (pooled RR 1.71; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21 in favour of PEG vs. SPMC) and vomiting (pooled RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.95 in favour of single-dose SPMC vs. split-dose). Conclusions: SPMC is equally effective to NaP and little superior to PEG in terms of bowel cleansing. SPMC preparations were better tolerated than PEG preparations. SPMC may be considered as standard bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
