# Also in the Article

Resistance
This protocol is extracted from research article:
Agreement between rhinomanometry and computed tomography-based computational fluid dynamics
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, Mar 7, 2021;

Procedure

From the data of the congested, decongested and simulated AARs, pressure drops around $Δp$ = − 150 Pa and $Δp$ = 150 Pa were chosen. Pressure drops between − 175 Pa and -125 Pa were titled -150 Pa and pressure drops between 125 and 175 Pa were titled 150 Pa. Flow rate data were aggregated accordingly as the mean values based on the $Δp$ = − 150 Pa and $Δp$ = 150 Pa. Therefore, 4 $Δp$ and 4 flow rate values were available for each subject (2 $Δp$ and 2 flow rate values per nasal side and 2 $Δp$ and 2 flow rate values per respiration phase). Data were organized per subject, nasal side and respiration phase (either inspiration or expiration), after being transformed to absolute values. Resistance was calculated by dividing the pressure drop (at − 150 Pa and 150 Pa) by the flow rate (ml/s). Only resistance values of inspiration were used for further analysis. The resistance derived from the simulation was defined as SimRes150. The resistance derived from the clinical AAR was defined as RhinoRes150.

The correlation between RhinoRes150 and SimRes150 was examined with a Pearson’s correlation to allow comparison with results of other studies [10]. Correlations were categorized as strong if r > 0.8, moderate if 0.6 > r > 0.8 and weak if r < 0.6. We used a paired t-test for statistical comparison between RhinoRes150 and SimRes150. Similarly, the agreement was investigated with the Bland–Altman method of agreement. We performed an inter-subject examination of agreement per nasal side and respiration phase.

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.

Q&A