Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Voice disorder prevalence varies from 3.3% to 72.8% across different military exposure contextsMilitary Service and Chemical Exposure Linked to Voice Disorders

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that voice disorder prevalence varies significantly based on specific military roles and chemical exposure levels.

This meta-analysis evaluates the prevalence of voice and laryngeal disorders within specific military populations, including general military personnel, those with high-vocal-demand roles, and those with chemical exposure. The study aims to quantify the impact of different service contexts on laryngeal health.

The analysis found a 3.3% prevalence in the general military population (n = 1,613,921). Prevalence was notably higher in high-vocal-demand personnel at 40.0% (n = 3,708) and reached 72.8% in chemically exposed cohorts (n = 145). These results suggest that specific occupational demands and environmental exposures are associated with higher rates of voice disorders.

Several limitations affect the interpretation of these data, including high heterogeneity and low statistical power for pairwise findings. The chemically exposed cohort had a particularly limited sample size. Consequently, the authors note that these pooled estimates should not be considered precise prevalence figures. Clinical application is limited by the very low certainty of the estimates provided.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses a gap in quantifying the prevalence of voice disorders in specific military contexts. While prior coverage noted that methodological inconsistencies in machine learning hinder the clinical application of automated classification for voice disorders, this study provides data on the actual prevalence of these conditions in high-risk groups. The findings confirm that specific exposures, such as high-vocal-demand and chemical exposure, are associated with higher prevalence rates compared to the general population.

A large review of military data looked at how often service members experience voice or laryngeal issues. The study looked at three different groups: the general military population, those with high vocal demands, and those exposed to chemicals.

Researchers found that while 3.3% of the general military population had these issues, the rate jumped to 40% for those with high vocal demands. For those exposed to chemicals, the reported rate was even higher at 72.8%. However, the researchers noted that the evidence for these specific numbers is very weak because the data was inconsistent and the sample sizes for some groups were small.

Because the evidence is not very certain, these numbers should not be seen as exact figures for every individual. The findings show a link between certain job demands and voice problems, but they do not prove that one caused the other. People with these concerns should speak with a medical professional to discuss their specific situation.

What this means for you:
Voice disorders are more common in military members with high vocal demands or chemical exposure.

Common questions

How common are voice disorders in the military?

The prevalence varies depending on the specific group. In the general military population, the rate was 3.3%. However, for personnel with high vocal demands, the rate was 40.0%. For those in chemically exposed cohorts, the rate was 72.8%.

Does chemical exposure cause voice problems?

The study shows a link between chemical exposure and voice issues in 72.8% of the chemically exposed group. However, the evidence is considered very low certainty, and the study does not prove that the exposure caused the condition.

Is the data on these voice disorders reliable?

The researchers noted that the evidence is of very low certainty. This is because the data was inconsistent and the sample size for the chemically exposed group was small. These numbers should not be used as precise figures for everyone.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundVoice and related laryngeal disorders may affect communication, occupational functioning and readiness in military populations, but their prevalence remains poorly characterized. We estimated prevalence across general military populations, high-vocal-demand personnel and chemically exposed military or veteran cohorts.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were searched in September 2024. Eligible studies included active-duty personnel, recruits, reservists or veterans and reported voice or related laryngeal outcomes. Clinically referred or symptom-selected cohorts were synthesized narratively. Subgroup-specific random-effects meta-analyses used logit-transformed proportions, restricted maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Prediction intervals and generalized linear mixed-model sensitivity analyses were calculated. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using design-appropriate appraisal tools and GRADE.ResultsSixteen studies were included in the systematic review, and 11 independent datasets from nine studies contributed to the meta-analysis. In general military populations, pooled prevalence was 3.3% (95% CI 0.2–37.5%; five datasets; n = 1,613,921; I2 = 99.8%; 95% prediction interval 0.001–99.1%). Prevalence was 40.0% in high-vocal-demand personnel (95% CI 0.8–98.2%; three datasets; n = 3,708; I2 = 99.5%; prediction interval 0–100%) and 72.8% in chemically exposed cohorts (95% CI 43.3–90.4%; three datasets; n = 145; I2 = 57.5%; prediction interval 0.6–99.9%). An exploratory meta-regression identified an overall subgroup association (p = 0.0300), but pairwise findings were inconsistent and statistical power was limited. Certainty of evidence was Very Low for all three estimates.ConclusionsReported prevalence varies substantially across military populations and exposure contexts. Because heterogeneity was high and the certainty of evidence was Very Low, the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution and should not be considered precise prevalence figures or evidence of causation. Standardized prospective studies are needed to quantify the occupational-health burden and evaluate targeted surveillance, prevention and early-referral approaches.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250640753, identifier: CRD420250640753.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.