Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Comparison of different rhinomanometry methods in the measurement of nasal airway resistance

Wong, Eugene Hung Chih 2014. Comparison of different rhinomanometry methods in the measurement of nasal airway resistance. MPhil Thesis, Cardiff University.
Item availability restricted.

PDF (For online version (with some figures removed)) - Accepted Post-Print Version
Download (9MB) | Preview
[img] PDF - Supplemental Material
Restricted to Repository staff only

Download (141kB)


Various rhinomanometry methods can be used to measure nasal airway resistance, which include the classic method at fixed pressure of 150 Pa or 75 Pa, Broms method at radius of 200 and 4-phase rhinomanometry method. This thesis compared the unilateral nasal resistance measurements obtained using these methods, when applied across four artificial model noses, to further improve our understanding of their relationship. The first comparison was made between the classic and 4-phase rhinomanometry method. No statistically significant differences were found between the values obtained from both methods (U>Ucritical, p>0.05). Bland- Altman plots also showed good agreement between both methods with narrow limits of agreement. The second comparison was made between the classic and Broms method. The measurements from the classic (at 75 Pa or 150 Pa) and Broms method gave either statistically significant similarities or differences (U>Ucritical, p<0.05) depending on the level of nasal resistances. The magnitude of change in resistance was also dependent on the method used, with bigger changes in resistance observed when using Broms method at certain levels of nasal resistances compared to classic measurements in the same patient. The last part of the thesis was to evaluate the reproducibility of the rhinomanometry methods and the rhinomanometer used in this study over a 24-hour period. Bland-Altman plots showed high level of agreement between measurements taken in both days and CV value ranges from 0.49-14.3%, which were acceptable levels of reproducibility. In conclusion, there was a high degree of conformity between resistances measured by the classic and 4-phase rhinomanometry methods. Broms method either gave similar or different measurements to the classic and, by extension of this study, 4-phase rhinomanometry measurements, depending on the level of nasal resistance. Applying the principle of Ockham’s razor, the simple classic method is recommended as the method of choice for rhinomanometry.

Item Type: Thesis (MPhil)
Status: Unpublished
Schools: Biosciences
Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education
Uncontrolled Keywords: rhinomanometry, methods, classic, Broms, 4-phase rhinomanometry, comparison, nose models
Date of First Compliant Deposit: 30 March 2016
Last Modified: 10 Dec 2014 16:57

Citation Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item


Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics