Open AccessComparison of classic and 4-phase rhinomanometry methods, is there any difference?
Author(s) -
Eugene Hung Chih Wong,
Ron Eccles
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
rhinology (amsterdam. online)/rhinology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.275
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1996-8604
pISSN - 0300-0729
DOI - 10.4193/rhino13.187
Subject(s) - rhinomanometry , medicine , limits of agreement , significant difference , nose , orthodontics , nuclear medicine , surgery
Background: There are various different parameters used to measure nasal airway resistance (NAR) in rhinomanometry, which include the classic method at fixed pressure of 150Pa or 75Pa and 4-phase rhinomanometry. This study aims to determine if there is any difference between the measurements of NAR obtained by the classic and 4-phase rhinomanometry methods. Methodology: In-vitro study with measurements of NAR using both methods when applied across four artificial nose models. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between NAR values obtained from both methods. Strong, positive correlations were found between NAR measured with both methods, which were statistically significant. Bland-Altman method also showed good agreement between both methods with narrow limits of agreement. Conclusion: There is high level of conformity between the values of nasal airway resistance measured using both methods.