Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow.
Rhinology. 1990 Sep; 28(3):191-6.R

Abstract

In several conditions objective assessment of nasal obstruction would be of great value. In this study we have compared two different methods for this purpose. Anterior rhinomanometry is a well established method, which measures nasal airway resistance (NAR). This was compared with nasal inspiratory peak flow (NIPF) measured with a Youlten peak flow meter. The assessments were undertaken in patients with allergic rhinitis, before and after challenge with hyperosmolar saline solution. After challenge there was a fall in NIPF value as a mean of 17.4%, that was mirrored by a rise in NAR of 15.6%. There was also a statistically significant negative linear correlation between these two methods (p less than 0.01). We conclude that NIPF is a cheap, easily performed and quick method suitable for assessing nasal airway patency in e.g. allergics during treatment and during challenge.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Professional Unit, Institute of Otology and Laryngology, London, United Kingdom.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

2251470

Citation

Holmström, M, et al. "Assessment of Nasal Obstruction. a Comparison Between Rhinomanometry and Nasal Inspiratory Peak Flow." Rhinology, vol. 28, no. 3, 1990, pp. 191-6.
Holmström M, Scadding GK, Lund VJ, et al. Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology. 1990;28(3):191-6.
Holmström, M., Scadding, G. K., Lund, V. J., & Darby, Y. C. (1990). Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology, 28(3), 191-6.
Holmström M, et al. Assessment of Nasal Obstruction. a Comparison Between Rhinomanometry and Nasal Inspiratory Peak Flow. Rhinology. 1990;28(3):191-6. PubMed PMID: 2251470.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. AU - Holmström,M, AU - Scadding,G K, AU - Lund,V J, AU - Darby,Y C, PY - 1990/9/1/pubmed PY - 1990/9/1/medline PY - 1990/9/1/entrez SP - 191 EP - 6 JF - Rhinology JO - Rhinology VL - 28 IS - 3 N2 - In several conditions objective assessment of nasal obstruction would be of great value. In this study we have compared two different methods for this purpose. Anterior rhinomanometry is a well established method, which measures nasal airway resistance (NAR). This was compared with nasal inspiratory peak flow (NIPF) measured with a Youlten peak flow meter. The assessments were undertaken in patients with allergic rhinitis, before and after challenge with hyperosmolar saline solution. After challenge there was a fall in NIPF value as a mean of 17.4%, that was mirrored by a rise in NAR of 15.6%. There was also a statistically significant negative linear correlation between these two methods (p less than 0.01). We conclude that NIPF is a cheap, easily performed and quick method suitable for assessing nasal airway patency in e.g. allergics during treatment and during challenge. SN - 0300-0729 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/2251470/Assessment_of_nasal_obstruction__A_comparison_between_rhinomanometry_and_nasal_inspiratory_peak_flow_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -