Dalston R M, Warren D W, Dalston E T
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Jul;100(1):59-65. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70050-7.
This study examined the records of a consecutive series of 79 patients referred for evaluation at the Oral-Facial and Communicative Disorders Program during a 3-month period in 1989. The purpose was to determine whether clinical judgments of hyponasality, based on a six-point equal-appearing interval scale or an acoustic assessment with a Kay Elemetrics nasometer could provide information concerning nasal airway patency comparable to that obtained by means of aerodynamic measurement techniques. Among the 40 adults in the series, the sensitivity of hyponasality ratings was 0.55 when nasal airway impairment was defined as a condition in which the airway was less than 0.40 and 0.71 when the definition was limited to airways of less than 0.30 cm2. Specificities for the two groups were 0.89 and 0.85, respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity of nasometer ratings was 0.30 for the first group and 0.38 for the second group, while the specificity for the two groups was 0.83 and 0.92, respectively. Comparable analyses for children were not possible because of the extent to which nasal airway size varies in children younger than 15 years of age. Possible reasons for the findings and their clinical significance are discussed.
本研究检查了1989年为期3个月的时间段内，连续转介至口腔面部及交流障碍项目进行评估的79例患者的记录。目的是确定基于六点等距量表的鼻漏气临床判断或使用凯伊电子鼻计进行的声学评估，是否能提供与通过空气动力学测量技术获得的信息相当的有关鼻气道通畅性的信息。在该系列的40名成年人中，当鼻气道损害定义为气道小于0.40时，鼻漏气评级的敏感性为0.55；当定义限于小于0.30平方厘米的气道时，敏感性为0.71。两组的特异性分别为0.89和0.85。同样，鼻计评级的敏感性在第一组为0.30，在第二组为0.38，而两组的特异性分别为0.83和0.92。由于15岁以下儿童的鼻气道大小变化程度，无法对儿童进行类似分析。讨论了这些发现的可能原因及其临床意义。
