Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway

Derek Lam, Kathryn T. James, Edward M. Weaver

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Studies comparing different categories of nasal measures have reported inconsistent results. We sought to compare validated measures of the nasal airway: anatomic (acoustic rhinometry), physiological (nasal peak inspiratory flow), and subjective experience (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale and a visual analog scale [VAS]). Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study of 290 nonrhinologic patients included upright and supine rhinometry (minimum cross sectional area [MCA] and volume) and flow (mean and maximum) measurements, as well as subjective measures. Associations between measures were evaluated with Spearman correlations and multivariate linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, and smoking history. Results: Correlations between objective (rhinometry and flow) and subjective categories of nasal measures ranged from -0.16 to 0.03 (mean correlation, -0.07 ± 0.05), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. Correlations between anatomic (rhinometry) and physiological (flow) categories ranged from 0.04 to 0.15 (mean correlation, 0.10 ± 0.03), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. In contrast, within each category (rhinometry, flow, and subjective), all correlations were significant (13 correlations, all p <0.001) and ranged from 0.62 to 0.99. Of 16 adjusted associations between objective and subjective measures, 14 were not significant (p > 0.05); only upright and supine MCAs were significantly associated with the VAS (both, p <0.05). Conclusion: Validated anatomic, physiological, and subjective nasal measures may assess different aspects of the nasal airway and provide complementary information. Future studies should be directed at developing a composite measure including components from all three categories of nasal measurement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)463-470
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Rhinology
Volume20
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nose
Visual Analog Scale
Acoustic Rhinometry
Nasal Obstruction
Symptom Assessment
Linear Models
Body Mass Index
Cross-Sectional Studies
Smoking
History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. / Lam, Derek; James, Kathryn T.; Weaver, Edward M.

In: American Journal of Rhinology, Vol. 20, No. 5, 09.2006, p. 463-470.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lam, Derek ; James, Kathryn T. ; Weaver, Edward M. / Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. In: American Journal of Rhinology. 2006 ; Vol. 20, No. 5. pp. 463-470.
@article{a55c4bce8826422f9f2e654a0d9adefe,
title = "Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway",
abstract = "Background: Studies comparing different categories of nasal measures have reported inconsistent results. We sought to compare validated measures of the nasal airway: anatomic (acoustic rhinometry), physiological (nasal peak inspiratory flow), and subjective experience (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale and a visual analog scale [VAS]). Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study of 290 nonrhinologic patients included upright and supine rhinometry (minimum cross sectional area [MCA] and volume) and flow (mean and maximum) measurements, as well as subjective measures. Associations between measures were evaluated with Spearman correlations and multivariate linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, and smoking history. Results: Correlations between objective (rhinometry and flow) and subjective categories of nasal measures ranged from -0.16 to 0.03 (mean correlation, -0.07 ± 0.05), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. Correlations between anatomic (rhinometry) and physiological (flow) categories ranged from 0.04 to 0.15 (mean correlation, 0.10 ± 0.03), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. In contrast, within each category (rhinometry, flow, and subjective), all correlations were significant (13 correlations, all p <0.001) and ranged from 0.62 to 0.99. Of 16 adjusted associations between objective and subjective measures, 14 were not significant (p > 0.05); only upright and supine MCAs were significantly associated with the VAS (both, p <0.05). Conclusion: Validated anatomic, physiological, and subjective nasal measures may assess different aspects of the nasal airway and provide complementary information. Future studies should be directed at developing a composite measure including components from all three categories of nasal measurement.",
author = "Derek Lam and James, {Kathryn T.} and Weaver, {Edward M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
doi = "10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2940",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "463--470",
journal = "American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy",
issn = "1945-8924",
publisher = "OceanSide Publications Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway

AU - Lam, Derek

AU - James, Kathryn T.

AU - Weaver, Edward M.

PY - 2006/9

Y1 - 2006/9

N2 - Background: Studies comparing different categories of nasal measures have reported inconsistent results. We sought to compare validated measures of the nasal airway: anatomic (acoustic rhinometry), physiological (nasal peak inspiratory flow), and subjective experience (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale and a visual analog scale [VAS]). Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study of 290 nonrhinologic patients included upright and supine rhinometry (minimum cross sectional area [MCA] and volume) and flow (mean and maximum) measurements, as well as subjective measures. Associations between measures were evaluated with Spearman correlations and multivariate linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, and smoking history. Results: Correlations between objective (rhinometry and flow) and subjective categories of nasal measures ranged from -0.16 to 0.03 (mean correlation, -0.07 ± 0.05), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. Correlations between anatomic (rhinometry) and physiological (flow) categories ranged from 0.04 to 0.15 (mean correlation, 0.10 ± 0.03), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. In contrast, within each category (rhinometry, flow, and subjective), all correlations were significant (13 correlations, all p <0.001) and ranged from 0.62 to 0.99. Of 16 adjusted associations between objective and subjective measures, 14 were not significant (p > 0.05); only upright and supine MCAs were significantly associated with the VAS (both, p <0.05). Conclusion: Validated anatomic, physiological, and subjective nasal measures may assess different aspects of the nasal airway and provide complementary information. Future studies should be directed at developing a composite measure including components from all three categories of nasal measurement.

AB - Background: Studies comparing different categories of nasal measures have reported inconsistent results. We sought to compare validated measures of the nasal airway: anatomic (acoustic rhinometry), physiological (nasal peak inspiratory flow), and subjective experience (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale and a visual analog scale [VAS]). Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study of 290 nonrhinologic patients included upright and supine rhinometry (minimum cross sectional area [MCA] and volume) and flow (mean and maximum) measurements, as well as subjective measures. Associations between measures were evaluated with Spearman correlations and multivariate linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, and smoking history. Results: Correlations between objective (rhinometry and flow) and subjective categories of nasal measures ranged from -0.16 to 0.03 (mean correlation, -0.07 ± 0.05), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. Correlations between anatomic (rhinometry) and physiological (flow) categories ranged from 0.04 to 0.15 (mean correlation, 0.10 ± 0.03), with 0 significant correlations of 16 tested. In contrast, within each category (rhinometry, flow, and subjective), all correlations were significant (13 correlations, all p <0.001) and ranged from 0.62 to 0.99. Of 16 adjusted associations between objective and subjective measures, 14 were not significant (p > 0.05); only upright and supine MCAs were significantly associated with the VAS (both, p <0.05). Conclusion: Validated anatomic, physiological, and subjective nasal measures may assess different aspects of the nasal airway and provide complementary information. Future studies should be directed at developing a composite measure including components from all three categories of nasal measurement.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750039622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33750039622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2940

DO - 10.2500/ajr.2006.20.2940

M3 - Article

C2 - 17063739

AN - SCOPUS:33750039622

VL - 20

SP - 463

EP - 470

JO - American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy

JF - American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy

SN - 1945-8924

IS - 5

ER -