Gordts F, Clement P A, Derde M P
VUB, Brussel, België.
Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg. 1988;42(6):772-8.
Three methods of rhinomanometry were compared with each other with respect to their ability to determine the histamine threshold (histamine concentration for a 100% increase of the initial total nasal resistance): the active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR), the active posterior rhinomanometry (APR) and the passive anterior rhinomanometry (PAR). Nasal challenge and consecutive measurement by the three methods of rhinomanometry were conducted in a group of 11 volunteers. The three methods gave significantly different histamine concentration thresholds (p = 0.002). Unilateral histamine thresholds as available from AAR and PAR (at a flow of 250 cm3/sec) did not differ significantly (p = 0.299). For AAR and APR, histamine thresholds were assessed at 5 different pressure values as well as at 5 different flow values. The thresholds did not appear to be significantly different at any one of those pressure gradients (p = 0.690) or flow values (p = 0.357).
比较了三种鼻阻力测量方法在确定组胺阈值（使初始总鼻阻力增加100%时的组胺浓度）方面的能力：主动前鼻阻力测量法（AAR）、主动后鼻阻力测量法（APR）和被动前鼻阻力测量法（PAR）。对11名志愿者进行了鼻激发试验，并通过这三种鼻阻力测量方法进行连续测量。这三种方法得出的组胺浓度阈值有显著差异（p = 0.002）。AAR和PAR（在流速为250 cm³/秒时）得出的单侧组胺阈值无显著差异（p = 0.299）。对于AAR和APR，在5个不同的压力值以及5个不同的流速值下评估组胺阈值。在这些压力梯度（p = 0.690）或流速值（p = 0.357）中的任何一个下，阈值似乎都没有显著差异。
