Abstract
Practitioners in the field of voice are often faced with patients who are 'dysphonic', but who do not have identifiable abnormalities of the vocal tract structures or any neural or hormonal alteration affecting the phonatory function. For lack of better nomenclature describing the origin of the disorder, this group of patients has been labeled as having 'non-organic' or 'functional' dysphonia. ...
Abstract
Practitioners in the field of voice are often faced with patients who are 'dysphonic', but who do not have identifiable abnormalities of the vocal tract structures or any neural or hormonal alteration affecting the phonatory function. For lack of better nomenclature describing the origin of the disorder, this group of patients has been labeled as having 'non-organic' or 'functional' dysphonia. 'Non-organic' only states what the dysphonia is not, and 'functional' does not have any etiological implication. Hence 'functional disorder' as a determination of the origin is at best vague, imprecise and often misleading. In truth, the terms "functional" and 'non-organic' are by now so muddled and confused in everyday clinical usage and parlance that it is unclear what they mean in any given clinical setting or for any particular clinical case. Thus, the UEP Voice Committee (VC) has come to the conclusion that it is best to adopt a new term that is clearly defined, universally agreed to, and indicative of a different and more useful perspective. We have reviewed the literature relating to terminology of these phonatory disorders. We now propose replacement of the phrase 'functional dysphonia' with 'malregulative dysphonia', since the indication of faulty regulation represents an etiological connotation. We also propose a restructuring of the etiological terminology of phonation disorders. We believe this to be a biologically clearer framework for the labeling of 'non-organic' phonatory disorders, and hope that its routine use will allow for more clarity of presentation and discussion in the future.
Altmetric