The Diagnostic Value of Traditional Nasal Examination Tools in an Endoscopic Era
| Autor: | Chonthicha Chit-Uea-Ophat, Wisoot Reechaipichitkul, Patorn Piromchai, Seksun Chainansamit |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Endoscope Nose 030230 surgery Sensitivity and Specificity Otolaryngology 03 medical and health sciences Otoscopes 0302 clinical medicine Predictive Value of Tests Nose Diseases medicine Humans Prospective Studies 030223 otorhinolaryngology Endoscopes Nasal endoscopy business.industry Surgical Instruments Otorhinolaryngology Female Radiology Nasal Cavity Nasal Obstruction Symptom Assessment business Value (mathematics) Nasal symptoms |
| Zdroj: | Ear, Nose & Throat Journal. 100:167-171 |
| ISSN: | 1942-7522 0145-5613 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/0145561319875711 |
| Popis: | Background: As the endoscope has become more common in the otolaryngologist’s office, there is a need to reevaluate the value of traditional nasal examination methods. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of traditional nasal examination tools compared to those of the rigid endoscope. Methods: A prospective diagnostic study was conducted. Eligible patients with nasal symptoms were recruited and examined using 4 tools: (1) a nasal speculum, (2) an otoscope, (3) a posterior rhinoscopy mirror, and (4) a rigid nasal endoscope. The diagnostic value of each tool was evaluated. Results: There were a total of 53 patients eligible for inclusion in the study. The mean age of all patients was 40.9 years. The most common nasal symptom was nasal obstruction (90.6%). With regard to the tools used in anterior rhinoscopy, the nasal speculum had a sensitivity of 54.69% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 41.75-67.18) and specificity of 88.10% (95% CI: 74.37-96.02); and the otoscope had a sensitivity of 57.81% (95% CI: 44.82-70.06) and specificity of 85.71% (95% CI: 71.46-94.57). After application of topical anesthesia and decongestant, the nasal speculum had a sensitivity of 67.19% (95% CI: 54.31-78.41) and specificity of 85.71% (95% CI: 71.46-94.57); and the otoscope had a sensitivity of 65.62% (95% CI: 52.70-77.05) and specificity of 83.33% (95% CI: 68.64-93.03). The posterior rhinoscopy mirror had a sensitivity of 12.50% (95% CI: 5.18-24.07) and specificity of 94.00% (95% CI: 83.45-98.75). All adverse events in this study were minor. Conclusion: The traditional nasal examination tools exhibited excellent specificity. However, the sensitivity was only average, meaning that they may not be suitable for screening. We do not recommend routine use of topical anesthesia and decongestants when applying these tools, as the application of these agents did not improve the clinical sensitivity or specificity. The posterior rhinoscopy mirror had a lowest sensitivity. We thus do not recommend using a posterior rhinoscopy mirror to rule out pathologies of the posterior nasal cavity. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|