Reference values for peak nasal inspiratory flow in children and adolescents in Brazil
Open accessAbstract
Statement of the problem: Allergic rhinitis is a global public health issue. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) can help in the assessment of patients with allergic rhinitis. However, reference values in the literature for PNIF in school children and adolescents are limited. THE AIM OF THIS STUDY was to identify reference values of PNIF among children and adolescents. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to identify reference values of PNIF among healthy school children and adolescents aged from eight to fifteen years old, selected from 14 randomly selected public schools. Participants performed measurements of PNIF using the In-check-inspiratory flow meter (Clement Clarke, Harlow, England). PNIF values were correlated to gender, age, height, weight and body mass index. Results: A total of 526 subjects participated in the study. The final linear regression model for PNIF allowed obtaining the following equation for subjects aged from eight to 15 years old: PNIF (l/m) = height (centimeters) x 0.7 + 11.2, for boys and PNIF (l/m) = height (centimeters) x 0.7, for girls. Conclusion: the equations of the final regression model resulted in a simple formula to obtain reference values of PNIF for subjects aged from 8 to 15 years old.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
A wide range of values of normality for PNIF have been published in adults and children.
“A wide range of values of normality have been published in adults [31,44,58-61] and children [58-61].”
From Position Paper on Nasal Obstruction: Evaluation and Treatment (2018) · cites this paper as [61]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Asher MI, Montefort S, Bjorksten B, et al. ISAAC Phase Three 1. Study Group. Worldwide time trends in the prevalence of symp- toms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in child- hood: ISAAC Phases One and Three repeat multicountry cross- sectional surveys. Lancet. 2006; 368: 733-743.
- Canonica GW, Bousquet J, Mullol J, Scadding GK, Virchow 3. JC. A survey of the burden of allergic rhinitis in Europe. Allergy. 2007; 85: 17-25.
- Wilson A, Dempsey OJ, Sims EJ, Coutie WJR, Paterson MC, 4. Lipworth BJ. Evaluation of treatment response in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis using domiciliary nasal peak flow. Clin Exp Allergy. 2000; 30: 833-838.
- Wilson AM, Dempsey OJ, Sims EJ, Lipworth BJ. A comparison 5. of topical budesonide and oral montelukast in seasonal allergic rhinitis and asthma. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001; 31: 616-624.
- Nathan RA, Eccles R, Howarth PH, Steinsvag SK, Togias A. 6. Objective monitoring of nasal patency and nasal physiology in rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005, 115: 442-459.
- Chan KO, Huang ZI, Wang DY. Acoustic rhinometric assesment 7. of nasal obstruction after treatment with fluticasone propionate in patients with perennial rhinitis. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2003; 30: 379-383.
- Jones AS, Viani L, Phillips DE, Charters P. The objective assess- 8. ment of nasal patency. Clin Otolaryng. 1991; 16: 206-211.
- Clement PA, Gordts F. Standardisation Committee on Objective 10. Assessment of Nasal Airway, IRS, and ERS. Consensus report on acoustic rhinometry and rhinomanometry. Rhinology. 2005; 43: 169-179.
- Holmstron M, Scadding GK, Lund VJ, Darby YC. Assessment of 11. nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology. 1990; 28: 191-196.
- Wihl JA, Malm L. Rhinomanometry and nasal peak expiratory 12. and inspiratory flow rate. Ann Allergy. 1988; 61: 50-55.
- Frølund L, Madsen F, Mygind N, Nielsen NH, Svendsen UG, 13. Weeke B. Comparison between different techniques for measuring nasal patency in a group of unselected patients. Acta Otolaryngol. 1987; 104: 175-179.
- Ottaviano G, Scadding GK, Coles S, Lund VJ. Peak nasal inspira- 14. tory flow:normal range in adult population. Rhinology. 2006; 44: 32-35.
- Prescott CA, Prescott KE. Peak nasal inspiratory flow measure- 15. ments: an investigation in children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1995; 32: 137-141.
- Papachristou A, Bourli E, Aivazi D, et al. Normal peak nasal 16. inspiratory flow rate values in Greek children and adolescents. Hippokratia. 2008; 12: 94-102.
- Klossek JM, Lebreton JP, Delagranda A, Dufour X. PNIF meas- 17. urement on healthy French population. A prospective study about 234 patients. Rhinology. 2009; 47: 389-392.
- Starling-Schwanz R, Peake HL, Salome CM, et al. Repeatability 18. of peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements and utility for assess- ing the severity of rhinitis. Allergy. 2005; 60: 795-800.
- Blomgren K, Simola M, Hytönen M, Pitkäranta A. Peak nasal 19. inspiratory and expiratory flow measurements-practical tools in primary care? Rhinology. 2003; 41: 206-210.
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
Objective measures for functional diagnostic of the upper airways: practical aspects
Chaves, C., de Andrade, C. R., & Ibiapina, C. (2014) · Rhinology journal · doi:10.4193/rhino13.109 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationCorrelation between peak nasal inspiratory flow and peak expiratory flow in children and adolescents
Chaves, C., Ibiapina, C., Andrade, C. R., Godinho, R., Alvim, C. G., & Cruz, A. A. (2012) · Rhinology journal · doi:10.4193/rhin12.073 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- da Cunha Ibiapina, C., Ribeiro de Andrade, C., Moreira Camargos, P. A., Gonçalves Alvim, C., & Augusto Cruz, A.
- Venue
- Rhinology journal
- Publisher
- Stichting Nase
- Published
- 2011-08-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 304-308
- ISSN
- 0300-0729 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2407197384
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Rhinology Journal (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 › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Keywords
- peak nasal inspiratory flow, reference values, allergic rhinitis, children, adolescents, nasal airflow, regression models, height, sex differences
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Brazil, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Inspiratory Capacity, Male, Nose, Reference Values, Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial, Linear Models
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
