Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science) >

2022 , Vol. 42 >Issue 12: 1720 - 1728

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2022.12.010

Evidence-based medicine

Evaluation tools for speech function after oral cancer surgery: a scoping review

  • Mei WU ,
  • Yanjing LIANG ,
  • Lili HOU
Expand
  • 1.Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Nursing, Shanghai 200025, China
    2.Department of Nursing, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200011, China
HOU Lili, E-mail: pisces_liz@163.com.

Received date: 2022-05-20

  Accepted date: 2022-11-28

  Online published: 2022-12-28

Supported by

Innovation Research Team of High-level Local Universities in Shanghai(SHSMU-ZDCX20212802)

Fold

Abstract

Objective ·To obtain the evaluation tools of postoperative speech function of oral cancer in existing studies, and summarize the application methods, application scenarios and development status of the postoperative speech function assessment tools for oral cancer. Methods ·The methodological framework was based on the review method of the Joanna Briggs Institute evidence-based health care center in Australia. The databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP. The English terms were ("oral cancer" or "oral cavity cancer" or "head and neck neoplasm*"[MeSH Terms]) AND ("speech" or" language" [MeSH Terms]) AND ("assess*" or "evaluat*"[MeSH Terms]), the Chinese terms were "speech", "speech disorders", "speech function", and the search discipline was limited to "stomatology" or "nursing".The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to July 2022, and the included literature was summarized and analyzed. Results ·A preliminary search of 4 476 articles from the literature databases was obtained, excluding duplicate literature, literature that was not relevant to the purpose and content of the study, review literature, non-Chinese or non-English literature, etc. A total of 9 articles were included, including 7 cross-sectional studies and 2 cohort studies. The time range of the included literature was 1990?2022, and the national sources included the United States, Japan, Germany, India, etc. A total of three evaluation methods were summarized, namely scales, automatic identification technology and other methods such as internet of things (IoT) devices, in which scale evaluation is currently the most mainstream evaluation method, and speech handicap index (SHI) is one of the most widely used evaluation scales, which has been culturally adapted and localized in China, but the evaluation tools of local original research have not been retrieved. Conclusion ·Among the oral cancer postoperative speech assessment tools, the scale is the most widely used method, but there are few studies that can balance subjective speech assessment and objective speech assessment, and the domestic related research is vacant. In the future, relevant research can be carried out in combination with these two aspects, and a tool for assessing speech function after oral cancer surgery suitable for local languages can be developed.

Key words： speech function; oral cancer; evaluation tool; postoperation; scoping review

Cite this article

Mei WU , Yanjing LIANG , Lili HOU . Evaluation tools for speech function after oral cancer surgery: a scoping review[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2022 , 42(12) : 1720 -1728 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2022.12.010

References

1 李江, 张春叶. 口腔癌及口咽癌病理诊断规范[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2020, 18(4): 289-296.
1 LI J, ZHANG C Y.Pathological diagnosis of oral cancer and oropharyngeal cancer[J].Chin J Stomatol, 2020(3): 145-152.
2 BRAY F, FERLAY J, SOERJOMATARAM I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018, 68(6): 394-424.
3 FENG R M, ZONG Y N, CAO S M, et al. Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics? [J]. Cancer Commun, 2019, 39(1): 22.
4 郑家伟, 李金忠, 钟来平, 等. 口腔鳞状细胞癌临床流行病学研究现状[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2007, 5(2): 83-90.
4 ZHENG J W, LI J Z, ZHONG L P, et al. Clinical epidemiological research status of oral squamous cell carcinoma[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2007, 5(2):83-90.
5 中华口腔医学会口腔颌面外科专业委员会肿瘤学组. 口腔颌面部恶性肿瘤治疗指南[J]. 中国口腔颌面外科杂志, 2010, 8(2): 98-106.
5 Oncology Group, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Committee, Chinese Stomatology Association. Guidelines for the treatment of oral and maxillofacial malignancies[J]. China J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2010, 8(2): 98-106.
6 JOO Y H, CHO J K, Koo B S, et al. Guidelines for the surgical management of oral cancer: Korean society of thyroid-head and neck surgery[J]. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol, 2019, 12(2): 107-144.
7 LAM L, SAMMAN N. Speech and swallowing following tongue cancer surgery and free flap reconstruction: a systematic review[J]. Oral Oncol, 2013, 49(6): 507-524.
8 OMURA K. Current status of oral cancer treatment strategies: surgical treatments for oral squamous cell carcinoma[J]. Int J Clin Oncol, 2014, 19(3): 423-430.
9 何三纲. 口腔解剖生理学[M]. 8版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020: 257-260.
9 HE S G. Oral anatomy and physiology[M]. 8th ed. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House, 2020: 257-260.
10 FOSTER C C, MELOTEK J M, BRISSON R J, et al. Definitive chemoradiation for locally-advanced oral cavity cancer: a 20-year experience[J]. Oral Oncol, 2018, 80: 16-22.
11 BLYTH K M, MCCABE P, MADILL C, et al. Speech and swallow rehabilitation following partial glossectomy: a systematic review[J]. Int J Speech Lang Pathol, 2015, 17(4): 401-410.
12 彭翠娥, 李赞, 周波, 等. 口腔癌术后患者症状群与生活质量的相关性研究[J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2020, 26(8): 1038-1043.
12 PENG C E, LI Z, ZHOU B, et al. A study on the correlation between symptom groups and quality of life in patients after oral cancer surgery[J].Chin J Modern Nurs, 2020, 26(8): 1038-1043.
13 LOCKWOOD C, DOS SANTOS K B, PAP R. Practical guidance for knowledge synthesis: scoping review methods[J]. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci), 2019, 13(5): 287-294.
14 WOISARD V, BALAGUER M, FREDOUILLE C, et al. Construction of an automatic score for the evaluation of speech disorders among patients treated for a cancer of the oral cavity or the oropharynx: the Carcinologic Speech Severity Index[J]. Head Neck, 2022, 44(1): 71-88.
15 DOKHE Y, THANKAPPAN K, SOOD R, et al. Validation of an intelligibility assessment tool in an Indian language for perceptual speech analysis in oral cancer patients[J]. Indian J Surg Oncol, 2021, 12(1): 100-107.
16 KEILMANN A, KONERDING U, OBERHERR C, et al. The Articulation Handicap Scale with 12 items (AHS-12): a short form of the Articulation Handicap Index (AHI)[J]. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol, 2021, 46(2): 70-76.
17 KEILMANN A, KONERDING U, OBERHERR C, et al. Articulation handicap index: an instrument for quantifying psychosocial consequences of impaired articulation[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2016, 273(12): 4493-4500.
18 RIEMANN M, KNIPFER C, ROHDE M, et al. Oral squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue: prospective and objective speech evaluation of patients undergoing surgical therapy[J]. Head Neck, 2016, 38(7): 993-1001.
19 ELLABBAN M A, SHOAIB T, DEVINE J, et al. The functional intraoral Glasgow scale in floor of mouth carcinoma: longitudinal assessment of 62 consecutive patients[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2013, 270(3): 1055-1066.
20 RINKEL R N, VERDONCK-DE LEEUW I M, VAN REIJ E J, et al. Speech Handicap Index in patients with oral and pharyngeal cancer: better understanding of patients' complaints[J]. Head Neck, 2008, 30(7): 868-874.
21 NISHIGAWA G, NATSUAKI N, MARUO Y, et al. Galvanic skin response of oral cancer patients during speech[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2003, 30(5): 522-525.
22 LIST M A, RITTER-STERR C, LANSKY S B. A performance status scale for head and neck cancer patients[J]. Cancer, 1990, 66(3): 564-569.
23 NG E, LAW T, TANG E C H, et al. The cutoff point and diagnostic accuracy of the voice handicap index in Cantonese-speaking population[J]. J Voice, 2021, 35(2): 163-168.
24 CHAN H F, NG M L, ROSEN C A, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of speech handicap index: a scoping review[J]. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2021, 30(2): 748-760.
25 吴沛霞, 姚晴, 王韦, 等. 中文版言语障碍指数量表的信效度评价[J]. 护理学杂志, 2014, 29(18): 28-31.
25 WU P X, YAO Q, WANG W, et al. Evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Speech Handicap Index Scale[J]. J Nurs Sci, 2014, 29(18): 28-31.
26 CHAN H F, NG M L, ROSEN C A, et al. Cultural adaptation and validation of speech handicap index: a scoping review[J]. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2021, 30(2): 748-760.
27 FICHAUX-BOURIN P, WOISARD V, GRAND S, et al. Validation of a self assessment for speech disorders (Phonation Handicap Index)[J]. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord), 2009, 130(1): 45-51.
28 GOLDIE S J, JACKSON M S, SOUTAR D S, et al. The functional intraoral Glasgow scale (FIGS) in retromolar trigone cancer patients[J]. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 2006, 59(7): 743-746.
29 BALAGUER M, POMMéE T, FARINAS J, et al. Effects of oral and oropharyngeal cancer on speech intelligibility using acoustic analysis: systematic review[J]. Head Neck, 2020, 42(1): 111-130.
30 RINKEL R N P M, VERDONCK-DE LEEUW I M, BREE R, et al. Validity of patient-reported swallowing and speech outcomes in relation to objectively measured oral function among patients treated for oral or oropharyngeal cancer[J]. Dysphagia, 2015, 30(2): 196-204.
31 CONSTANTINESCU G, RIEGER J, WINGET M, et al. Patient perception of speech outcomes: the relationship between clinical measures and self-perception of speech function following surgical treatment for oral cancer[J]. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2017, 26(2): 241-247.
32 BECK-BROICHSITTER B E, HUCK J, KüCHLER T, et al. Self-perception versus professional assessment of functional outcome after ablative surgery in patients with oral cancer[J]. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2017, 143(2): 305-311.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉