1988PubMedRequires access

[Nasal provocation using histamine. A comparison of threshold determination using 3 methods of rhinomanometry].

Frans Gordts, Peter A. R. Clement, Marie-Paule Derde

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Three methods of rhinomanometry were compared with each other with respect to their ability to determine the histamine threshold (histamine concentration for a 100% increase of the initial total nasal resistance): the active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR), the active posterior rhinomanometry (APR) and the passive anterior rhinomanometry (PAR). Nasal challenge and consecutive measurement by the three methods of rhinomanometry were conducted in a group of 11 volunteers. The three methods gave significantly different histamine concentration thresholds (p = 0.002). Unilateral histamine thresholds as available from AAR and PAR (at a flow of 250 cm3/sec) did not differ significantly (p = 0.299). For AAR and APR, histamine thresholds were assessed at 5 different pressure values as well as at 5 different flow values. The thresholds did not appear to be significantly different at any one of those pressure gradients (p = 0.690) or flow values (p = 0.357).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Three methods of rhinomanometry were compared with each other with respect to their ability to determine the histamine threshold (histamine concentration for a 100% increase of the initial total nasal resistance): the active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR), the active posterior rhinomanometry (APR) and the passive anterior rhinomanometry (PAR). Nasal challenge and consecutive measurement by the three methods of rhinomanometry were conducted in a group of 11 volunteers. The three methods gave significantly different histamine concentration thresholds (p = 0.002). Unilateral histamine thresholds as available from AAR and PAR (at a flow of 250 cm3/sec) did not differ significantly (p = 0.299). For AAR and APR, histamine thresholds were assessed at 5 different pressure values as well as at 5 different flow values. The thresholds did not appear to be significantly different at any one of those pressure gradients (p = 0.690) or flow values (p = 0.357).

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Three methods of rhinomanometry were compared with each other with respect to their ability to determine the histamine threshold (histamine concentration for a 100% increase of the initial total nasal resistance): the active anterior rhinomanometry (AAR), the active posterior rhinomanometry (APR) and the passive anterior rhinomanometry (PAR). Nasal challenge and consecutive measurement by the three methods of rhinomanometry were conducted in a group of 11 volunteers. The three methods gave significantly different histamine concentration thresholds (p = 0.002). Unilateral histamine thresholds as available from AAR and PAR (at a flow of 250 cm3/sec) did not differ significantly (p = 0.299). For AAR and APR, histamine thresholds were assessed at 5 different pressure values as well as at 5 different flow values. The thresholds did not appear to be significantly different at any one of those pressure gradients (p = 0.690) or flow values (p = 0.357).

Key concepts: Rhinomanometry, Histamine, Provocation test, Medicine, Anesthesia, Chemistry, Nose, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Nasal provocation using histamine. A comparison of threshold determination using 3 methods of rhinomanometry]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens