ArticleJournal of oral & maxillofacial research
Reliability of Acoustic Pharyngometry and Rhinometry Examination in Children and Adolescents.
Article in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. 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.
- Sleep-Disordered Breathing and Dimensions of The Maxillary Dental Arch and Hard Palate in Children With Class II and Large Overjet-A Case-Control Study.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in children and adolescents with large horizontal maxillary overjet due to mandibular retrognathia: a case-control study.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024Trial
- Risk of Narrow Upper Airway in Class II Children with Large Horizontal Maxillary Overjet Assessed By Acoustic Reflection: a Case-Control Study.Journal of oral & maxillofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to examine the method error and reliability of acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry in children and adolescents and to describe the feasibility of these methods in a young population. Material and Methods: The study sample included 35 healthy subjects in the age of 9 to 14 years. The subjects were randomly recruited for the present project in the period from June 2021 to February 2022. Repeated measurements of the upper airway dimensions in standing mirror position were performed by the use of Acoustic Pharyngometer and Rhinometer. Volume (cm Results: No systematic error exhibited in the repeated measurements except volume in the left nostril (P = 0.017). The method errors of the acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry were betweeen 0.0002 to 0.069 and 0.001 to 0.082 respectively. The Houston reliability coefficient for both methods were between 0.952 to 0.999. The acoustic pharyngometry was significantly more feasible compared to rhinometry (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The study shows that acoustic pharyngometry and rhinometry in the standing mirror position are reliable methods, with acoustic pharyngometry being even more feasible than rhinometry, which is why it is recommended to practice the methods with children and ensure reliability of results before registering measurements.
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.