Cited by 21Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsAsthma and respiratory diseases

North African reference equation for peak nasal inspiratory flow

Bouzgarou, M Denguezli, Saad, H Ben, Chouchane, A, Cheikh, I Ben, Zbidi, A, Dessanges, J F, Tabka, Z·2011·The Journal of Laryngology & Otology

Abstract

Aim: To assess, in healthy North African subjects, the applicability and reliability of a previously published reference equation and normal values for peak nasal inspiratory flow, and to calculate a peak nasal inspiratory flow reference equation in this population. Subjects and methods: Anthropometric data were recorded in 212 volunteers (100 females and 112 males) aged 13–27 years. Peak nasal inspiratory flow was measured several times. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine the reference equation. Results: The previously published reference equation and normal values did not reliably predict peak nasal inspiratory flow in the study population. In our subjects, the reference equation (r2 = 30 per cent) for peak nasal inspiratory flow (l/min) was 1.4256 × height (m) + 33.0215 × gender (where 0 = female, 1 = male) + 1.4117 × age (years) − 136.6778. The lower limit of normal was calculated by subtracting from the peak nasal inspiratory flow reference value (84 l/min). Conclusion: This is the first published study to calculate a reference equation for peak nasal inspiratory flow in North African subjects. This equation enables objective evaluation of nasal airway patency in patients of North African origin.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0022215111000181

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • PNIF values are higher in men than in women and are proportional to height; they increase from childhood to adulthood and then decrease in the elderly.

    “In general, values are higher in men than in women and are proportional to height; they increase from childhood to adulthood and then decrease in the elderly [57,62].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bouzgarou, M. D., Saad, H. B., Chouchane, A., Cheikh, I. B., Zbidi, A., Dessanges, J. F., & Tabka, Z.
Affiliations
  • Hôpital Farhat Hached (TN)
  • Hôpital Cochin (FR)
Venue
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology
Published
2011-02-28
Volume
125
Issue
6
Pages
595-602
ISSN
  • 0022-2151 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-5460
OpenAlex
W2122436086
Cited by
21
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Laryngology & Otology (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 › Asthma and respiratory diseases
Keywords
peak nasal inspiratory flow, reference equations, nasal patency, North African populations, anthropometric predictors, lower limit of normal, healthy young adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Africa, Northern, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anthropometry, Inhalation, Biometry, Body Height, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Cavity, Reference Values, Regression Analysis, Pulmonary Ventilation, Sex Characteristics, Reproducibility of Results, Nasal Obstruction, Linear Models, Rhinomanometry, Black People, Young Adult, Biostatistics

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