ArticleFrontiers in allergy2026
A novel nasal-to-oral airflow pressure ratio as an objective indicator of nasal obstruction.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To introduce and clinically validate, for the first time, a novel nasal-to-oral airflow pressure ratio as an objective metric for assessing nasal obstruction. This ratio is designed to capture compensatory breathing patterns and to improve correlation with subjective symptoms compared with existing assessment methods. Methods: A total of 108 patients with self-reported nasal obstruction and 26 healthy controls were enrolled. A custom-designed face mask equipped with pressure sensors recorded nasal airflow pressure during quiet breathing and oral airflow pressure during forced oral breathing. The nasal-to-oral airflow pressure ratio was calculated and correlated with visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for nasal obstruction using Spearman's correlation. Sex-specific subgroup analyses were performed. Results: The nasal-to-oral airflow pressure ratio was significantly lower in patients with nasal congestion than in controls (0.13 ± 0.10 vs 0.23 ± 0.12; Conclusion: This study provides the first clinical validation of the nasal-to-oral airflow pressure ratio as a sensitive, practical, and objective indicator of nasal obstruction. By incorporating compensatory oral breathing dynamics, the ratio bridges the gap between subjective sensation and traditional objective measurements, offering a low-cost, easy-to-deploy tool for broad clinical use.
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.