METHODS: Medline (1946-) and Embase (1947-) were searched until July 1, 2017. A search strategy was used to identify studies that reported NPIF values for defined healthy or disease states. All studies providing original data were included. The study population was defined as having either normal nasal breathing or nasal obstruction. A meta-analysis of the mean data was presented in forest plots, and data were presented as mean (95% confidence interval [CI]).
RESULTS: The search yielded 1,526 studies, of which 29 were included. The included studies involved 1,634 subjects with normal nasal breathing and 817 subjects with nasal obstruction. The mean NPIF value for populations with normal nasal breathing was 138.4 (95% CI: 127.9-148.8) L/min. The mean value for populations with nasal obstruction was 97.5 (95% CI: 86.1-108.8) L/min.
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence confirms a difference between mean NPIF values of populations with and without nasal obstruction. The mean value of subjects with no nasal obstruction is 138.4 L/min, and the mean value of nasally obstructed populations is 97.5 L/min. Prospective studies adopting a standardized procedure are required to further assess normative NPIF values. Laryngoscope, 131:260-267, 2021.
METHODS: A total of 128 (64 males, 64 females) non-smoking healthy young subjects were randomly sampled for the study from the Kelantanese students' population of the University Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu Campus, Kelantan, Malaysia. The study population (20-25 yr age group) had similar socio-economic background. Each subject filled up the ATS (1978) questionnaire to record their personal demographic data, health status and consent to participate in the study. Subjects with any history of pulmonary diseases were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: The pulmonary function measurements exhibited significantly higher values among males than the females. FEV 1% did not show any significant inter-group variation probably because the parameter expresses FEV 1 as a percentage of FVC. FVC and FEV 1 exhibited significant correlations with body height and body mass among males whereas in the females exhibited significant correlation with body mass, body weight and also with age. FEV 1% exhibited significant correlation with body height and body mass among males and with body height in females. FEF 25-75% did not show any significant correlation except with body height among females. However, PEFR exhibited significant positive correlation with all the physical parameters except with age among the females. On the basis of the existence of significant correlation between different physical parameters and pulmonary function variables, simple and multiple regression norms have been computed.
INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS: From the present investigation it can be concluded that Kelantanese Malaysian youths have normal range of pulmonary function in both the sexes and the computed regression norms may be used to predict the pulmonary function values in the studied population.
METHODS: Dyspnoea was assessed, and lung function measured in 25,806 adult participants of the multinational Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease study. Dyspnoea was defined as ≥2 on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale. The prevalence of dyspnoea was estimated for each of the study sites and compared across countries and world regions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of dyspnoea with lung function in each site. Results were then pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The prevalence of dyspnoea varied widely across sites without a clear geographical pattern. The mean prevalence of dyspnoea was 13.7 % (SD=8.2 %), ranging from 0 % in Mysore (India) to 28.8 % in Nampicuan-Talugtug (Philippines). Dyspnoea was strongly associated with both spirometry restriction (FVCfunction impairment. Using the mMRC scale in epidemiological research should be discussed.