Diagnostic Accuracy of Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow and Rhinomanometry in Functional Rhinosurgery
Abstract
Objectives Sensitivity and specificity of active anterior rhinomanometry (RMM) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) in the diagnosis of functionally relevant structural nasal deformities should be assessed. The reference standard was clinical judgment based on all clinical data available. Study design Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy at a tertiary rhinologic referral center. Methods RMM and PNIF were performed on 53 patients with symptomatic nasal stenosis and 40 healthy volunteers. Cut-offs for RMM and PNIF were defined by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results A cut-off between normal and pathological of 700 mL/second for RMM at a transnasal pressure difference of 150 Pa, and of 2,000 mL/second (120 l per minute) for PNIF was calculated. No significant differences in terms of sensitivity of RMM and PNIF (0.77 vs. 0.66), specificity (0.8 vs. 0.8) and diagnostic accuracy (0,79 vs. 0.72) were found. Conclusion RMM and PNIF provide valuable information to support clinical decision making. However, with both methods, approximately 25% of symptomatic patients with functionally relevant nasal structural deformity were not detected. A negative test outcome of RMM or PNIF does not exclude a functionally relevant nasal stenosis.
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?
There are no absolute values of normality for PNIF.
“although there are no absolute values of normality and the patient is the best judge for evaluating changes.”
From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [64]
Cut-off values of 115-120 L/min have been suggested to distinguish normality from obstruction on PNIF.
“Cut-off values of 115-120 L/min have been suggested to distinguish normality from obstruction [31,57,63,64]”
From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [64]
Cites
Stewart, M. G., Smith, T. L., Weaver, E. M., Witsell, D. L., Yueh, B., Hannley, M. T., Johnson, J. T., & The Nose Study Investigators (2004) · Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2003.12.004 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ottaviano, G., & Fokkens, W. J. (2016) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/all.12778 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
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
Hsu, H. C., Tan, C. D., Chang, C. W., Chu, C. W., Chiu, Y. C., Pan, C. J., & Huang, H. M. (2017) · Clinical Otolaryngology · doi:10.1111/coa.12662 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Kirtsreesakul, V., Leelapong, J., & Ruttanaphol, S. (2014) · American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy · doi:10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4008 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bermüller, C., Kirsche, H., Rettinger, G., & Riechelmann, H.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital Ulm (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Riechelmann, Herbert
- ORCID
- Riechelmann, Herbert
- Venue
- The Laryngoscope
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 605-610
- ISSN
- 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4995
- OpenAlex
- W2055795204
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 5.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Laryngoscope (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Cleft Lip and Palate Research
- Keywords
- peak nasal inspiratory flow, rhinomanometry, nasal stenosis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, nasal obstruction
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Constriction, Pathologic, Female, Humans, Inspiratory Capacity, Male, Middle Aged, Nose, Nose Deformities, Acquired, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Nasal Decongestants, Nasal Obstruction, Rhinomanometry
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