Minimal clinically important differences in nasal peak inspiratory flow

Rhinology

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 37-41

  Timperley, Daniel ^a,c   Srubisky, Aviva ^b   Stow, Nicholas ^d   Marcells, George N ^c   Harvey, Richard J ^a  

^a ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Bondi Junction Private Hospital   (Australia)

^d Mona Vale Hospital   (Australia)

Author keywords

Nasal obstruction; Nasal septum; Outcome assessment; Respiratory function tests; Rhinomanometry; Rhinoplasty; Treatment outcome; Turbinates

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG FUNCTION TEST; MALE; NOSE; NOSE OBSTRUCTION; NOSE RECONSTRUCTION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NASAL OBSTRUCTION; NOSE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RESPIRATORY FUNCTION TESTS; RHINOPLASTY;

EID: 79953178948     PISSN: 03000729     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4193/Rhino10.097     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Holmström M, Scadding GK, Lund VJ, et al. Assessment of nasal obstruction. A comparison between rhinomanometry and nasal inspiratory peak flow. Rhinology 1990; 28: 191-196.
2. Hopkins C. Patient reported outcome measures in rhinology. Rhinology 2009; 47: 10-17.
3. Starling-Schwanz R, Peake HL, Salome CM, et al. Repeatability of peak nasal inspiratory flow measurements and utility for assessing the severity of rhinitis. Allergy 2005; 60: 795-800.
4. Wihl JA, Malm L. Rhinomanometry and nasal peak expiratory and inspiratory flow rate. Ann Allergy 1998; 61: 50-55.
5. Jones AS, Viani L, Phillips D, et al. The objective measurement of nasal patency. Clin Otolaryngol 1991; 16: 206-211.
6. Phagoo SB, Watsoti RA, Pride NB. Use of nasal peak flow to assess nasal patency. Allergy 1997; 52: 901-908.
7. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 419-423.
8. Sloan JA. Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions. COPD. [Review]. 2005; 2: 57-62.
9. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. [Review]. 2002; 14: 109-114.
10. Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, et al. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 141-155.
11. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. [Review]. 2007; 66 Suppl 3: 40-41.
12. Make B. How can we assess outcomes of clinical trials: the MCID approach. COPD. [Review]. 2007; 4: 191-194.
13. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, et al. Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 1693-1700.
14. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-415.
15. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, et al. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. [Review]. 2007; 7: 541-546.
16. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003; 41: 582-592.
17. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 861-873.
18. Lam DJ, James KT, Weaver EM. Comparison of anatomic, physiological, and subjective measures of the nasal airway. Am J Rhinol 2006; 20: 463-470.
19. Mora F, Cassano M, Mora R, et al. V.A.S. in the follow-up of turbinectomy. Rhinology 2009; 47: 450-453.
20. Jose J, Ell SR. The association of subjective nasal patency with peak inspiratory nasal flow in a large healthy population. Clin Otolaryngol 2003; 28: 352-354.
21. Fairley JW, Durham LH, Ell SR. Correlation of subjective sensation of nasal patency with nasal inspiratory peak flow rate. Clin Otolaryngol 1993; 18: 19-22.
22. Ottaviano G, Scadding GK, Coles S, et al. Peak nasal inspiratory flow; normal range in adult population. Rhinology 2006; 44: 32-35.
23. Bermuller C, Kirsche H, Rettinger G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinomanometry in functional rhinosurgery. Laryngoscope 2008; 118: 605-610.
24. Fodil R, Brugel-Ribere L, Croce C, et al. Inspiratory flow in the nose: a model coupling flow and vasoerectile tissue distensibility. J Appl Physiol 2005; 98: 288-295.
25. Nathan RA, Eccles R, Howarth PH, et al. Objective monitoring of nasal patency and nasal physiology in rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 115: S442-S459.
26. Gleeson MJ, Youlten LJ, Shelton DM, et al. Assessment of nasal airway patency: a comparison of four methods. Clin Otolaryngol 1986; 11: 99-107.
27. Larsen K, Kristensen S. The peak flow nasal patency index. Ear Nose Throat J 1992; 71: 23-25.
28. Enberg RN, Ownby DR. Peak nasal inspiratory flow and Wright peak flow: a comparison of their reproducibility. Ann Allergy 1991; 67: 371-374.