Cited by 22Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationSinusitis and nasal conditions

Nasal Peak Inspiratory and Expiratory Flow Measurements for Assessing Nasal Obstruction in Allergic Rhinitis

Kirtsreesakul, Virat, Leelapong, Jitanong, Ruttanaphol, Suwalee·2014·American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy

Abstract

Background Although nasal peak flow measurements have been proposed as a simple alternative method to assess nasal patency, which of nasal peak expiratory flow or nasal peak inspiratory flow (NPEF/NPIF) or the peak expiratory flow index or peak inspiratory flow index (PEFI/PIFI; the ratios between nasal and oral PEF or nasal and oral PIF, respectively) is the more accurate method is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between NPEF, NPIF, PEFI, and PIFI, and blocked nose score (BNS) and mucociliary clearance time (MCCT) in diagnostic and follow-up assessments. Methods Ninety-nine allergic rhinitis (AR) patients were treated with 220 micrograms once daily of intranasal triamcinolone acetonide for 28 days. BNS, NPEF, NPIF, PEFI, and PIFI and MCCT were used to evaluate treatment outcome. Correlations of initial visit scores and score changes after treatment between peak flow rates and BNSs and MCCTs were analyzed. Results All nasal symptoms, peak flows, and MCCTs showed statistically significant improvements after the nasal steroid treatment. PEFI showed the best negative correlation with BNS and MCCTs, followed by PIFI, NPEF, and NPIF. Nasal peak flows showed better correlations with MCCTs than BNSs. Mean changes of peak flow rates between visits showed better correlation with BNSs and MCCTs than absolute values of peak flow rates at the initial visit. Conclusion Among nasal peak flow measurements, PEFI is the most appropriate objective tool for assess…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4008

Cites

37 of 37 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kirtsreesakul, V., Leelapong, J., & Ruttanaphol, S.
Affiliations
Prince of Songkla University (TH)
Venue
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy
Published
2014-03
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
126-130
ISSN
  • 1945-8924 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-8932
OpenAlex
W2322482831
Cited by
22
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
Keywords
allergic rhinitis, nasal obstruction, nasal patency, mucosal inflammation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Cross-Sectional Studies, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Intermittent Positive-Pressure Ventilation, Male, Middle Aged, Mouth, Mucociliary Clearance, Nose, Peak Expiratory Flow Rate, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Triamcinolone Acetonide, Reproducibility of Results, Nasal Obstruction, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, Young Adult, Rhinitis, Allergic

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