Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 15;12(9):1513.
doi: 10.3390/jpm12091513.

Correlations between Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow, Acoustic Rhinometry, 4-Phase Rhinomanometry and Reported Nasal Symptoms

Giancarlo Ottaviano  1 , Alfonso Luca Pendolino  2   3 , Bruno Scarpa  4 , Miriam Torsello  1 , Daniele Sartori  1 , Enrico Savietto  1 , Elena Cantone  5 , Piero Nicolai  1
Affiliations

Correlations between Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow, Acoustic Rhinometry, 4-Phase Rhinomanometry and Reported Nasal Symptoms

Giancarlo Ottaviano et al. J Pers Med. .

Abstract

Background: Rhinomanometry, acoustic rhinometry (AR) and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) are popular methods for nasal patency evaluation. The aim of the present study was to compare these three methods with the reported nasal symptoms to determine the best diagnostic tool to assess nasal obstruction. Methods: 101 subjects were evaluated using PNIF, 4-phase rhinomanometry (4PR), AR, Visual Analogue Scale for nasal obstruction (VAS-NO) and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). Correlations among PNIF, 4PR, AR, VAS-NO and SNOT-22 were obtained. Results: VAS-NO and SNOT-22 were moderately correlated with each other (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). 4PR was moderately correlated with PNIF (r = −0.31, p = 0.0016) and AR (r = −0.5, p < 0.001). VAS-NO was mildly correlated with PNIF (r = −0.29, p = 0.0034). SNOT-22 was moderately correlated with PNIF (r = −0.31, p = 0.0017). After dividing the population into symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects, based on their VAS-NO score, the former showed significantly lower PNIF values (p = 0.009) and higher 4PR values (p = 0.013) compared to the latter ones. Conclusion: PNIF and 4PR showed a significant moderate correlation with each other, but PNIF showed a significant correlation (weak-moderate) with the reported nasal symptom scores.

Keywords: 4-phase rhinomanometry; PNIF; SNOT-22; VAS; acoustic rhinometry; nasal obstruction; nasal symptoms; objective measurements; quality of life; questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Correlation between SNOT-22, VAS-NO, bilateral PNIF, AR and 4PR. PNIF: Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow; AR: acoustic rhinometry; 4PR: 4-Phase Rhinomanometry; SNOT-22: Sinonasal Outcome Test-22; VAS-NO: Visual Analogue Scale for Nasal Obstruction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Correlation between SNOT-22, VAS-NO, lPNIF, lAR and l4PR. lPNIF: left Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow; lAR: left acoustic rhinometry; l4PR: left 4-Phase Rhinomanometry; SNOT-22: Sinonasal Outcome Test-22; VAS-NO: Visual Analogue Scale for Nasal Obstruction.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Correlation between SNOT-22, VAS-NO, rPNIF, rAR and r4PR. rPNIF: right Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow; rAR: right acoustic rhinometry; r4PR: right 4-Phase Rhinomanometry; SNOT-22: Sinonasal Outcome Test-22; VAS-NO: Visual Analogue Scale for Nasal Obstruction.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Box-plot of PNIF, AR and 4PR compared with VAS-NO (a) and SNOT-22 (b). PNIF: Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow; AR: acoustic rhinometry; 4PR: 4-Phase Rhinomanometry.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rimmer J., Hellings P., Lund V.J., Alobid I., Beale T., Dassi C., Douglas R., Hopkins C., Klimek L., Landis B., et al. European position paper on diagnostic tools in rhinology. Rhinology. 2019;57:1–41. doi: 10.4193/Rhin19.410. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yepes-Nunez J.J., Bartra J., Munoz-Cano R., Sanchez-Lopez J., Serrano C., Mullol J., Alobid I., Sastre J., Picado C., Valero A. Assessment of nasal obstruction: Correlation between subjective and objective techniques. Allergol. Et Immunopathol. 2013;41:397–401. doi: 10.1016/j.aller.2012.05.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pendolino A.L., Nardello E., Lund V.J., Maculan P., Scarpa B., Martini A., Ottaviano G. Comparison between unilateral PNIF and rhinomanometry in the evaluation of nasal cycle. Rhinology. 2018;56:122–126. doi: 10.4193/Rhin17.168. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clarke R.W., Jones A.S. The limitations of peak nasal flow measurement. Clin. Otolaryngol. Allied Sci. 1994;19:502–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.1994.tb01277.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vogt K., Bachmann-Harildstad G., Lintermann A., Nechyporenko A., Peters F., Wernecke K.D. The new agreement of the international RIGA consensus conference on nasal airway function tests. Rhinology. 2018;56:133–143. doi: 10.4193/Rhin17.084. - DOI - PubMed