Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27455988›Full record

ArticleHNO2016

[Numerical flow simulation : A new method for assessing nasal breathing].

T Hildebrandt, J Osman, L Goubergrits

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HNO, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

T HildebrandtLimmatklinik, Hardturmstrasse 133, 8005, Zürich, Schweiz. th@dr-hildebrandt.ch.
J OsmanLabor für Biofluidmechanik, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
L GoubergritsLabor für Biofluidmechanik, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current options for objective assessment of nasal breathing are limited. The maximum they can determine is the total nasal resistance. Possibilities to analyze the endonasal airstream are lacking. In contrast, numerical flow simulation is able to provide detailed information of the flow field within the nasal cavity. Thus, it has the potential to analyze the nasal airstream of an individual patient in a comprehensive manner and only a computed tomography (CT) scan of the paranasal sinuses is required. The clinical application is still limited due to the necessary technical and personnel resources. In particular, a statistically based referential characterization of normal nasal breathing does not yet exist in order to be able to compare and classify the simulation results.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalComputer SimulationHumansNasal CavityRespiratory Function TestsRespiratory MechanicsRheologyFlow field parametersNasal breathingNasal functionNasal resistanceNumerical flow simulation

Identifiers

PMID27455988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.