Cited by 96Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsCleft Lip and Palate Research

Diagnostic Accuracy of Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow and Rhinomanometry in Functional Rhinosurgery

Bermüller, Christian, Kirsche, Hanspeter, Rettinger, Gerhard, Riechelmann, Herbert·2008·The Laryngoscope

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

Crossref · 10.1097/mlg.0b013e318161e56b

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?

  • 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.”
  • 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]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bermüller, C., Kirsche, H., Rettinger, G., & Riechelmann, H.
Affiliations
University Hospital Ulm (DE)
Corresponding author
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