Cited by 58Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditions

External nasal dilation reduces snoring in chronic rhinitis patients: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Pevernagie, D., Hamans, E., Van Cauwenberge, P., Pauwels, R.·2000·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Chronic rhinitis patients often suffer from unrefreshing sleep and snoring, related to increased nasal resistance to airflow. Previous trials based on subjective assessment of snoring have demonstrated beneficial effects of Breathe Right (BR), a noninvasive external nasal dilator. Polysomnography (PSG) was applied to objectively assess the effects of BR on snoring. Twelve nonobese chronic rhinitis patients participated in the present study, which had a randomized, placebo-controlled design. The presence of snoring and the absence of sleep apnoea was demonstrated during a baseline overnight sleep study. Patients were then randomized for placebo or true nasal dilator treatment, which was also assessed by overnight PSG. The use of BR had no effect on sleep quality, arousal-index apnoea-hypopnoea-index or snoring loudness. Snoring frequency was significantly lowered by BR (173+/-29 snores x h(-l)), compared with placebo (258+/-34 snores x h(-1); p=0.016). The results support the hypothesis that Breathe Right is effective in reducing the amount of snoring in patients with chronic rhinitis. This objective finding is in line with some other reports on subjective improvement of snoring, based upon the judgement of bedpartners.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1399-3003.2000.01504.x

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These treatments have not demonstrated a significant, persistent change in apnea-hypopnea index or improvement in sleep quality.

    “but has not demonstrated a significant, persistent change in AHI or improvement in sleep quality.”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [904]

    The Results and Discussion (pages not provided) report no significant difference in AHI or measured sleep characteristics between the nasal dilator and placebo in nonobese patients with chronic rhinitis. The Trial protocol describes overnight testing of one dilator, not long-term follow-up or multiple treatments, so the paper cannot establish the broader or persistent-treatment claim. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Topical nasal decongestion and/or external dilator strips for chronic nasal obstruction have been shown to decrease snoring.

    “Topical nasal decongestion and/or external dilator strip for chronic nasal obstruction has been shown to decrease snoring”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [904]

    The Abstract (page not provided) reports that Breathe Right external nasal dilator strips significantly reduced snoring frequency in 12 nonobese patients with chronic rhinitis, though not snoring loudness. The Discussion (page not provided) says topical decongestants can relieve nasal stuffiness, but does not show that they decrease snoring. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]6. Hoffstein V. Snoring. Chest 1996; 109: 201±222.
  2. [23]23. Graf P. Rhinitis medicamentosa: aspects of pathophy- siology and treatment. Allergy 1997; 52: 28±34.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pevernagie, D., Hamans, E., Van Cauwenberge, P., & Pauwels, R.
Affiliations
Ghent University Hospital (BE)
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2000-06
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
996
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2121161463
Cited by
58
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Respiratory Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
Keywords
chronic rhinitis, snoring, nasal resistance, sleep apnea, polysomnography, snoring frequency, sleep quality, arousal index
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Dilatation, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nose, Placebos, Prospective Studies, Rhinitis, Sleep, Snoring, Nasal Obstruction, Polysomnography, Cross-Over Studies

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