Correlations Between Acoustic Rhinometry, Subjective Symptoms, and Endoscopic Findings in Symptomatic Children With Nasal Obstruction
Abstract
Importance Nasal obstruction is common in children and difficult to quantify objectively. Symptom quantification is paramount for surgical and medical decision making. Acoustic rhinometry is a relatively new technique aimed at the objective assessment of nasal obstruction. There is no standardized method for the objective assessment of the pediatric nasal airway. Objective To explore the correlations between acoustic rhinometry (AR), subjective symptoms, and endoscopic findings in children presenting with nasal obstruction. Design, setting, and participants A cross-sectional, exploratory, diagnostic study of prospectively collected data from a multidisciplinary airway clinic (pulmonology, orthodontics, and otolaryngology) database at a tertiary academic referral center. Data were collected over a 2-year period (2010-2012) from 65 nonsyndromic children (38 boys) 7 years and older (mean [SD] age, 10.3 [2.5] years [range, 7-14 years]), presenting with persistent nasal obstructive symptoms for at least 1 year, without signs and symptoms of sinus disease. Interventions We collected patient demographics and medical history information including allergy, asthma, and sleep-disordered breathing. Subjective nasal obstruction was scored using a visual analog scale (VAS). Sleep-disordered breathing was assessed using overnight pulse oximetry. The adenoid size, septal position, and visual severity of chronic rhinitis (endoscopic rhinitis score [ERS]) were rated on nasal endoscopy by 2 ind…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The visual analog scale is a well-studied tool for assessing the severity of nasal obstruction and has been validated with reference to other subjective measures such as symptom score and to objective measures such as rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry, and peak nasal inspiratory flow in adults and nasal endoscopy in children.
“The VAS is a well-studied tool for assessing the severity of NO and has been validated with reference to other subjective measures such as symptom score [31] and to objective measures such as rhinomanometry (RMN), acoustic rhinometry (AcR), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) in adults [32,33] and nasal endoscopy in children [34].”
From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [34]
A study in children using nasal endoscopy, AcR, and VAS did not detect any significant correlation between the techniques, while a weak correlation was found between endoscopic findings and VAS.
“A study that evaluated NO in children using nasal endoscopy, AcR, and VAS did not detect any significant correlation between the techniques, while a weak correlation was found between endoscopic findings (unilateral, bilateral, or absent obstruction) and VAS [34].”
From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [34]
Cites
Mansfield, L. E., Diaz, G., Posey, C. R., & Flores-Neder, J. (2004) · Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/s1081-1206(10)61554-2 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Mendes, A. I. S., Wandalsen, G. F., & Solé, D. (2012) · Jornal de Pediatria · doi:10.2223/jped.2213 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment
SEAIC Rhinoconjunctivitis Committee & SEORL Rhinology, A., Valero, A., Navarro, A., del Cuvillo, A., Alobid, I., Benito, Jr., Colás, C., de los Santos, G., Fernández Liesa, R., García-Lliberós, A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.18176/jiaci.0232 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
- Authors
- Isaac, A., Major, M., Witmans, M., Alrajhi, Y., Flores-Mir, C., Major, P., Alsufyani, N., Korayem, M., & El-Hakim, H.
- Affiliations
- Division of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Stollery Children's Hospital (CA)
- Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
- Division of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada4Division of Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
- Venue
- JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2015-06-01
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 550
- ISSN
- 2168-6181 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002693122
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 4.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
- Keywords
- acoustic rhinometry, pediatric nasal obstruction, nasal endoscopy, septal deviation, sleep-disordered breathing, allergic rhinitis, asthma, decongestants, visual analogue scale, children
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Asthma, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Medical History Taking, Obesity, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, Cohort Studies, Nasal Obstruction, Comorbidity, Causality, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Rhinometry, Acoustic, Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery, Rhinitis, Allergic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
