Dvoracek J E, Hillis A, Rossing R G
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1985 Oct;76(4):577-82. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(85)90778-x.
This study was conducted to test the validity in adult subjects of the commonly used technique of summing anterior nasal measurements to describe the patency of the total nose. We measured the total nasal conductance in 36 nonallergic, nonsmoking subjects by use of posterior rhinomanometry (PRM) and compared the results with sequential summed unilateral conductances in the same subjects based on anterior rhinomanometry (ARM). Linear regression of the relationship between the two measures demonstrated significant differences. Variation between these two measures is composed of two parts: random time variation and a component attributable to the difference between methods. Random time variation was estimated from five serial posterior nasal conductances in nine of the subjects in a second experiment. We observed significantly greater variations between ARM and PRM than between PRM measures separated by similar time intervals (F 36.36 = 2.30, p less than 0.01). We conclude that PRM is significantly more accurate than summed ARM when the goal is to quantitate precisely the patency of the nose as a whole at a given instant in time, and yet summed ARM measurements may be acceptable in clinical studies wherein large changes in nasal patency occur.
本研究旨在测试在成年受试者中，通过累加前鼻测量值来描述整个鼻腔通畅性这一常用技术的有效性。我们使用后鼻测压法（PRM）测量了36名非过敏性、不吸烟受试者的总鼻导纳，并将结果与基于前鼻测压法（ARM）的同一受试者单侧导纳的顺序累加值进行比较。两种测量方法之间关系的线性回归显示出显著差异。这两种测量方法之间的差异由两部分组成：随机时间差异和方法之间差异导致的部分。在第二个实验中，从9名受试者的五次连续后鼻导纳测量中估计随机时间差异。我们观察到，与在相似时间间隔内分开的PRM测量值之间的差异相比，ARM和PRM之间的差异显著更大（F 36.36 = 2.30，p小于0.01）。我们得出结论，当目标是在给定时刻精确量化整个鼻腔的通畅性时，PRM比累加的ARM测量值显著更准确，然而，在鼻腔通畅性发生较大变化的临床研究中，累加的ARM测量值可能是可以接受的。
