ArticleHealth science reports2026
Longitudinal Changes in Nasal Airflow and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Acoustic Nasal Therapy: A Pilot Study.
Article in Health science reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Acoustic nasal therapy has emerged as a potential non-pharmacological adjunct for allergic rhinitis (AR) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), but longitudinal evidence on its effects on nasal airflow and patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This early-phase study evaluated changes in objective nasal airflow and symptom burden following a 4-week acoustic nasal therapy intervention and a follow-up period after treatment withdrawal. Methods: A prospective single-arm quasi-experimental longitudinal pilot study was conducted in 30 adults with clinician-diagnosed or symptom-consistent AR and/or CRS. Participants used a bilateral intranasal acoustic device for 10 min twice daily for 4 weeks. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up after discontinuation. The primary longitudinal outcomes were peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) scores. Secondary variables of subgroup, adherence, correlation, responder, and multivariable analyzes were also explored. Results: PNIF showed no significant change immediately post-intervention (-2.0 L/min, Conclusion: This study provides early longitudinal evidence on acoustic nasal therapy in adults classified as having AR and/or CRS. Patient-reported symptoms improved during active treatment and attenuated after withdrawal, while changes in objective nasal airflow were less consistent. These hypothesis-generating findings support controlled studies to clarify efficacy, optimal dosing, and durability of response.
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.