Evaluation of nasal patency: Comparison of patient and clinician assessments with rhinomanometry
Evaluation of nasal patency: Comparison of patient and clinician assessments with rhinomanometry
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00016489850182567
复制
发表时间：
1998-11-01
影响因子：
1.4
通讯作者：
Kalogeropoulos, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Panagou, P;Loukides, S;Kalogeropoulos, N
鼻阻力的客观测量和鼻气流感觉之间的相关性通常被认为是差的。本研究的目的是评估鼻炎、哮喘、鼻炎和哮喘、鼻中隔畸形患者组和正常对照组的鼻通畅性客观指标（通过阻塞法（RN）和Youlten峰值鼻吸气流量计（PNIF）评估）与患者或临床医生对鼻阻塞的主观感觉之间的关系。我们通过RN和PNIF研究了254例受试者（37例女性，217例男性）的鼻气道通畅性，平均年龄21岁（范围14-78）。鼻电阻也通过应用欧姆定律并联电阻（NRO）通过估计单侧电阻单独测量。鼻阻塞的主观感觉由患者在10分制的博格量表（BLOG）上评估，或由临床医生（CLN）在6分制的量表上评估（每侧鼻各3分）。后者是在参考感觉的帮助下以受控的方式完成的。根据年龄、身高、吸烟状况和气道口径进行调整。我们发现RN和CLN之间有很好的相关性（r = 0.57，p = 10（-4））; 2而RN和CLN之间的相关性是中等的，具有临界显著性（r = 0.42，p = 0.001）。p = 0.05）。通过逻辑回归分析，我们发现，在0.30 kPa/l/s的临界值下，鼻阻力异常的唯一独立预测因素是临床医生评估的鼻评分（I = 0.26，比值= 2.45）。我们的结论是，PNIF测量和鼻通气评分作为鼻通畅性的指标是有限的，尽管后者显示出与旧的研究相比改善的关联。由于需要某种客观测量来评估鼻通畅性，因此所描述的临床医生评估在临床上可用于代替PNIF，但这是由于其有点主观的性质以及其不能检测较轻度的鼻塞。不能推荐其作为测压法的替代方法。
The correlation between the objective measurement of nasal resistance and nasal airflow sensation is usually regarded as poor. The aim of the study was to assess the relation between objective indices of nasal patency, as assessed by the occlusion method (RN) and the Youlten peak nasal inspiratory dow meter (PNIF), with subjective sensations of nasal blockade by either the patient or the clinician in groups of patients with rhinitis, asthma, rhinitis and asthma, nasal septal deformity and in normal controls. We studied nasal airway patency in 254 subjects (37 women, 217 men), mean age 21 years (range 14-78) by RN and PNIF. Nasal resistance was also measured by the application of Ohm's law for parallel resistors (NRO) by estimating the unilateral resistance separately. Subjective sensation of nasal blockade was assessed either by the patient on a 10-point Borg scale (SUB), or the clinician (CLN) on a 6-point scale (3 for each side of the nose). The latter was done in a controlled fashion with the aid of reference sensations. Adjusting for age, height, smoking status and airway calibre. we found good correlation between RN and CLN (r = 0.57, p = 10(-4)); whereas the association between RN and SUB was moderate and of borderline significance (r = 0.42. p = 0.05). By logistic regression analysis, we found that the only independent predictors of abnormal nasal resistance at a cut-off value of 0.30 kPa/l/s were the nasal scores as assessed by the clinician (I = 0.26, odds = 2.45). We conclude that PNIF measurement and SUB scores are of limited use as indices of nasal patency, although the latter showed an improved association in comparison to older studies. As there is a necessity for some sort of objective measurement to assess nasal patency, the described clinician evaluation may be clinically useful in place of PNIF, but due to its somewhat subjective nature and its inability to detect milder levels of nasal obstruction. it cannot be recommended as an alternative to rhinomanometry.