ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2016
Specificity and sensitivity assessment of selected nasal provocation testing techniques.
Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new perspective on acoustic rhinometry in terms of standardisation, including the nasal allergen provocation test.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2022Review
- Effect of standardized vs. local preoperative enteral feeding practice on the incidence of NEC in infants with duct dependent lesions: Protocol for a randomized control trial.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Objectification of the nasal patency assessment techniques used in nasal allergen provocation testing.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2020Review
- Multisensor Systems and Arrays for Medical Applications Employing Naturally-Occurring Compounds and Materials.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2018Article
- Local allergic rhinitis: evolution of concepts.Clinical and translational allergy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNasal provocation testing involves an allergen-specific local reaction of the nasal mucosa to the administered allergen.
aimTo determine the most objective nasal occlusion assessment technique that could be used in nasal provocation testing. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 60 subjects, including 30 patients diagnosed with allergy to common environmental allergens and 30 healthy subjects were enrolled into the study. The method used in the study was a nasal provocation test with an allergen, with a standard dose of a control solution and an allergen (5,000 SBU/ml) administered using a calibrated atomizer into both nostrils at room temperature. Early-phase nasal mucosa response in the early phase of the allergic reaction was assessed via acoustic rhinometry, optical rhinometry, nitric oxide in nasal air, and tryptase levels in the nasal lavage fluid.
resultsIn estimating the homogeneity of the average values, the Levene's test was used and receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted for all the methods used for assessing the nasal provocation test with an allergen. Statistically significant results were defined for
conclusionsThe techniques used showed significant differences between the group of patients with allergic rhinitis and the control group. Of all the objective assessment techniques, those most sensitive and characteristic were the optical rhinometry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.