(1) Background: The clinical utility of videostroboscopy assessment relies not only on clinicians’ ability to identify and analyse laryngeal parameters, but in their ability to interpret the clinical significance of their observations and apply them to their patient’s context. A wide range of parameters can be identified and rated on videostroboscopy assessment. However, no research to date has explored the rationale for analysis and/or the clinical significance of these features. If clinical time is being dedicated to analysing and interpreting endoscopic and stroboscopic laryngeal parameters, there must be a clear, evidence-based rationale for doing so.
(2) Objectives: This study aims to explore the rationale for analysis of endoscopic and stroboscopic parameters on videostroboscopy and map the clinical significance of their interpretation in the assessment of dysphonia and/or voice production in adults.
(3) Methods & Design: A scoping review was completed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The databases CINAHL Ultimate (AMED, MEDLINE), PubMed, ProQuest and WorldCat were searched from inception. Abductive content analysis was conducted to categorise parameters reported across data sources, while thematic grouping was utilised to report upon the rationale and/or clinical significance of parameters.
(4) Results: A total of 87 data sources were included in the review, with 54 parameters identified overall. Parameters were often reported together as a ‘constellation’ of features rather than in isolation. The clinical significance of endoscopic and stroboscopic parameters was inconsistently reported in the existing literature, relying predominantly on general assertations of importance rather than patient specific or evidence-based rationale.
(5) Conclusions: Videostroboscopic assessment of voice is widely practiced, but continues to be complex to interpret. Purposeful selection of parameters, intentional labelling of diagnoses, and voice disorder classifications in addition to completion of consensus-based studies for the selection and interpretation of parameters, could support progression in clinical reporting and continuity in the evidence base going forwards. Together, these practices could lay the foundations for technological advancements in the field.