2018 Section 6 - Laryngology, Voice Disorders, and Bronchoesophalogy

technique compared to VS. 11,12 This may imply a risk of bias, not in favor of VS. The impact from biases influencing single studies is reduced in a meta-analysis. Publication bias may still be an issue, bcause significant findings are more likely pub- lished than nonsignificant findings, leading to an overes- timated effect size. However, Egger’s test for publication bias showed that this was not the case for the current meta-analysis. CONCLUSION The results of this meta-analysis showed that VS is generally able to identify almost all patients with glottic cancer, but only approximately two-thirds of patients with noninvasive lesions are correctly identified as not having cancer. It highlights the need for further research concerning assessment of patients with a glottic lesion. Superior diagnostic equipment will help optimize preoper- ative assessment of future patients to provide sufficient treatment in cases of premalignant lesions or cancer, and at the same time avoid unnecessary operations. Acknowledgments The authors thank Mette Brandt Eriksen, scientific librar- ian at the Odense University Hospital research library, for her help with developing the search strategy, and innova- tion consultant Mette Atipei Craggs, Odense University Hospital, for her help with the final editing. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bless DM, Hirano M, Feder RJ. Videostroboscopic evaluation of the larynx. Ear Nose Throat J 1987;66:289–296. 2. Colton RH, Woo P, Brewer DW, Griffin B, Casper J. Stroboscopic signs associated with benign lesions of the vocal folds. J Voice 1995;9:312–325. 3. Casiano RR, Zaveri V, Lundy DS. Efficacy of videostroboscopy in the diag- nosis of voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1992;107:95–100. 4. Hirano M, Yoshida Y, Yoshida T, Tateishi O. Strobofiberscopic video record- ing of vocal fold vibration. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1985;94:588–590. 5. Yiu EML, Lau VCY, Ma EPM, Chan KMK, Barrett E. Reliability of laryng- ostroboscopic evaluation on lesion size and glottal configuration: a revisit. Laryngoscope 2014;124:1638–1644. 6. Djukic V, Milovanovic J, Jotic AD, Vukasinovic M. Stroboscopy in detection of laryngeal dysplasia effectiveness and limitations. J Voice 2014;28: 262.e213–262.e221.

7. Colden D, Zeitels SM, Hillman RE, Jarboe J, Bunting G, Spanou K. Strob- oscopic assessment of vocal fold keratosis and glottic cancer. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2001; 110:293–298. 8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009; 3:e123–e130. 9. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Defining the review question and developing cri- teria for including studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Updated March 2011. Accessed 23 March 2015. 10. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Sign 50: A Guideline Developer’s Handbook. SIGN publication no. 50. October 2014. Edin- burgh, United Kingdom: SIGN; 2014. Available at: http://www.sign.ac. uk/guidelines/fulltext/50. Accessed 23 March 2015. 11. Gugatschka M, Kiesler K, Beham A, Rechenmacher J, Friedrich G. Hyper- plastic epithelial lesions of the vocal folds: combined use of exfoliative cytology and laryngostroboscopy in differential diagnosis. Eur Arch Oto- rhinolaryngol 2008;265:797–801. 12. Caffier PP, Schmidt B, Gross M, et al. A comparison of white light laryng- ostroboscopy versus autofluorescence endoscopy in the evaluation of vocal fold pathology. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1729–1734. 13. Newcombe RG, Altman DG. Proportions and their differences. In: Altman D, Machin D, Bryant T, Gardner M, eds. Statistics with Confidence: Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books; 2000. 14. Remacle M. The contribution of videostroboscopy in daily ENT practice. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 1996;50:265–281. 15. Paul BC, Chen S, Sridharan S, Fang Y, Amin MR, Branski RC. Diagnostic accuracy of history, laryngoscopy, and stroboscopy. Laryngoscope 2013; 123:215–219. 16. Shang DS, Ruan LX, Zhou SH, Bao YY, Cheng KJ, Wang QY. Differentiat- ing laryngeal carcinomas from precursor lesions by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T: a preliminary study. PLoS One 2013;8:e68622. 17. El-Demerdash A, Fawaz SA, Sabri SM, Sweed A, Rabie H. Sensitivity and specificity of stroboscopy in preoperative differentiation of dysplasia from early invasive glottic carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272:1189–1193. 18. Peretti G, Piazza C, Berlucchi M, Cappiello J, Giudice M, Nicolai P. Pre- and intraoperative assessment of mid-cord erythroleukoplakias: A pro- spective study on 52 patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2003;260:525– 528. 19. Crosetti E, Pilolli F, Succo G. A new strategy for endoscopic staging of laryngeal carcinoma: multistep endoscopy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2012;32:175–181. 20. Sone M, Sato E, Hayashi H, Fujimoto Y, Nakashima T. Vascular evalua- tion in laryngeal diseases: comparison between contact endoscopy and laser Doppler flowmetry. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132: 1371–1374. 21. Piazza C, Cocco D, De Benedetto L, Del Bon F, Nicolai P, Peretti G. Nar- row band imaging and high definition television in the assessment of laryngeal cancer: a prospective study on 279 patients. Eur Arch Otorhi- nolaryngol 2010;267:409–414. 22. Klancnik M, Gluncic I, Cikojevic D. The role of contact endoscopy in screening for premalignant laryngeal lesions: a study of 141 patients. Ear Nose Throat J 2014;93:177–180. 23. Puxeddu R, Sionis S, Gerosa C, Carta F. Enhanced contact endoscopy for the detection of neoangiogenesis in tumors of the larynx and hypophar- ynx. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1600–1606.

Laryngoscope 126: September 2016

Mehlum et al.: VS and Prediction of Early Glottic Cancer

26