CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Nasal Surgery and Airway StudiesSinusitis and nasal conditionsAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization

PNIF measurement in a healthy French population. A prospective study about 234 patients

Klossek, J.-M.·2009·Rhinology Journal
DOI 10.4193/rhin08.083
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective A prospective study in a healthy French population to evaluate the normal range of PNIF. Material and methods In total, 234 subjects separated into 2 groups (group 1: patients with VAS >or= 8, n = 151 and group 2: patients with VAS Results The mean PNIF measurements in group 1 and group 2 were 87.5 L/min and 84.7 L/min, respectively with a significant difference between male and female in both groups (p Conclusion This study confirms that the technique of PNIF measurement is reliable and simple. The normal range of PNIF in a healthy French population has been determined although our results show lower values than previous published reports from other countries. However, it remains an attractive method for the follow-up and survey of patients complaining of nasal obstruction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4193/rhin08.083

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?

  • The relationship of PNIF with the symptom score measured using a VAS is controversial.

    “Its relationship with the symptom score measured using a VAS is controversial [31,63,68,69]”

    From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [69]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klossek, J.-M.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Poitiers (FR)
Corresponding author
Klossek, J.-M.
Venue
Rhinology Journal
Publisher
Stichting Nase
Published
2009-12-01
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
389-92
ISSN
0300-0729 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4193/rhin08.083
OpenAlex
W2474145941
Cited by
37
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Rhinology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nasal Surgery and Airway Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Sinusitis and nasal conditions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Immunology and Allergy › Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Keywords
nasal obstruction, reference values, healthy population, nasal airflow, reproducibility, sex differences, age differences, French population
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Diagnostic Techniques, Respiratory System, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nasal Cavity, Pain Measurement, Prospective Studies, Reference Values, Nasal Obstruction, Young Adult

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