Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Westmead Hospital, Sydney Medical School, Australia.
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Rhinology. 2019 Dec 1;57(6):477-478. doi: 10.4193/Rhin19.269.
We read with interest the excellent paper authored by Rimmer et al. (1) entitled The European Position Paper on Diagnostic Tools in Rhinology. The authors are to be commended for their comprehensive, up-to-date and thorough summary of available tests in the assessment of rhinologic function. The paper describes traditional tools used in nasal airway obstruction (NAO); including subjective patient reported outcome measure questionnaires (PROMs) such as the NOSE scale; tests that are subjective to the clinician, such as clinical examination, nasendoscopy and imaging; and objective tests such peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), rhinomanometry (RM) and acoustic rhinometry (AR). Unfortunately, each of these readily available, traditional tools fail to meet several accepted criteria of an ideal diagnostic test (Table 1), as outlined (2,3). In our opinion, these limitations restrict the capacity of Rhinology to develop as a discipline founded on sound evidence-based science.
我们饶有兴趣地阅读了 Rimmer 等人撰写的优秀论文（1），题为《欧洲鼻科学诊断工具立场文件》。作者全面、及时和彻底地总结了评估鼻科学功能的现有测试，值得称赞。该论文描述了用于鼻气道阻塞（NAO）的传统工具；包括主观的患者报告结果测量问卷（PROM），如 NOSE 量表；以及主观的临床医生检查、鼻内镜检查和影像学检查等测试；以及客观测试，如峰值鼻吸气流量（PNIF）、鼻阻力测量（RM）和鼻声反射测量（AR）。不幸的是，这些现成的传统工具都未能满足理想诊断测试的几个公认标准（表 1），如概述的那样（2，3）。在我们看来，这些局限性限制了鼻科学作为一门以基于证据的科学为基础的学科的发展能力。
