English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Defined criteria for nasal provocation exist only for the anterior Rhinomanometrie (aRM). During the last years there are other techniques for nasal provocation in use. In this study the new instruments were compared with the established aRM. We examined 14 patients with perennial rhinitis. All showed positive skin test and RAST against D. pteronyssinus. The controls were 13 atopic patients sensitized against pollen but not against D. pteronyssinus and 20 healthy volunteers. All subjects underwent nasal provocation with D. pteronyssinus. On the first day the provocation was unilateral. The instruments were the aRM, the Oscilloresistometry (ORM), the Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flowmeter (PNIF) and the Acoustic Rhinometry (Rhinoklack). On the second day the provocation was bilateral with ORM and PNIF. First we determined the limits for separation between a positive and negative nasal provocation test for the different instruments. Then we calculated the sensitivity and specificity for the instruments. By unilateral provocation there was a good sensitivity for all devices. The specificity was very good with the aRM, ORM and PNIF. In conclusion the PNIF is as good as the other instruments, but the Rhinoklack was less specific than the others.

Vergleichbarkeit verschiedener Messmethoden bei der nasalen Provokation mit Allergenen