ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2022
Comparison of rhinomanometric and computational fluid dynamic assessment of nasal resistance with respect to measurement accuracy.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Computational Rhinology: Unraveling Discrepancies between In Silico and In Vivo Nasal Airflow Assessments for Enhanced Clinical Decision Support.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Could Enable Individualized Surgical Treatment of Nasal Obstruction (A Preliminary Study).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComputational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based calculation of intranasal airflow became an important method in rhinologic research. Current evidence shows weak to moderate correlation as well as a systematic underprediction of nasal resistance by numerical simulations. In this study, we investigate whether these differences can be explained by measurement uncertainties caused by rhinomanometric devices and procedures. Furthermore, preliminary findings regarding the impact of tissue movements are reported.
methodsA retrospective sample of 17 patients, who reported impaired nasal breathing and for which rhinomanometric (RMM) measurements using two different devices as well as computed tomography scans were available, was investigated in this study. Three patients also exhibited a marked collapse of the nasal valve. Agreement between both rhinomanometric measurements as well as between rhinomanometry and CFD-based calculations was assessed using linear correlation and Bland-Altman analyses. These analyses were performed for the volume flow rates measured at trans-nasal pressure differences of 75 and 150 Pa during inspiration and expiration.
resultsThe correlation between volume flow rates measured using both RMM devices was good (R
conclusionBiases introduced during RMM measurements, by either the chosen device, the operator or other aspects as for example the nasal cycle, are not strong enough to explain the gross differences commonly reported between RMM- and CFD-based measurement of nasal resistance. Additionally, tissue movement during breathing is most likely also no sufficient explanation for these differences.
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.