Cited by 149Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Comparison of Anatomic, Physiological, and Subjective Measures of the Nasal Airway

Lam, Derek J., James, Kathryn T., Weaver, Edward M.·2006·American Journal of Rhinology

Abstract

Background Studies comparing different categories of nasal measures have reported inconsistent results. We sought to compare validated measures of the nasal airway: anatomic (acoustic rhinometry), physiological (nasal peak inspiratory flow), and subjective experience (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale and a visual analog scale [VAS]). Methods This prospective cross-sectional study of 290 nonrhinologic patients included upright and supine rhinometry (minimum cross sectional area [MCA] and volume) and flow (mean and maximum) measurements, as well as subjective measures. Associations between measures were evaluated with Spearman correlations and multivariate linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, and smoking history. Results Correlations between objective (rhinometry and flow) and subjective categories of nasal measures ranged from -0.16 to 0.03 (mean correlation, -0.07 +/- 0.05), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. Correlations between anatomic (rhinometry) and physiological (flow) categories ranged from 0.04 to 0.15 (mean correlation, 0.10 +/- 0.03), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. In contrast, within each category (rhinometry, flow, and subjective), all correlations were significant (13 correlations, all p 0.05); only upright and supine MCAs were significantly associated with the VAS (both, p Conclusion Validated anatomic, physiological, and subjective nasal measures may assess different aspects of the nasal airway a…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2940

Cites

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?

  • Lamb et al found no significant correlation between the objective and subjective measures used.

    “No significant correlation was detected between the objective and subjective measures used.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lam, D. J., James, K. T., & Weaver, E. M.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
American Journal of Rhinology
Published
2006-09
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
463-470
ISSN
  • 1050-6586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-6290
OpenAlex
W1988913533
Cited by
149
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Rhinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K23HL068849)
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (T32DC000018)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (F32DE017268)
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
nasal airway, acoustic rhinometry, nasal obstruction, visual analogue scale, minimum cross-sectional area, nasal cavity volume, subjective and objective measures
MeSH terms
Adult, Airway Resistance, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Cavity, Nose, Pain Measurement, Posture, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Pulmonary Ventilation, Cohort Studies, Nasal Obstruction, Multivariate Analysis, Linear Models, Supine Position, Age Distribution, Rhinometry, Acoustic

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