xRead - September 2022

Wise et al.

Page 350

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript TABLE VIII.H.2.

Recent studies evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of nasal provocation testing Study Year LOE Study design Study groups Clinical endpoint Conclusion Krzych-Fałta et al. 1086 2016 2b Open controlled 1 Allergic (n = 30); 2 Controls (n = 30) Sensitivity and specificity of NPT by optical rhinometry, TNSS TNSS had a 93.3% sensitivity and a 77.4% specificity, optical rhinometry had a 100% sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of AR. de Blay et al. 1085 2015 2b Open controlled 1 HDM allergy patients (n = 49); 2 Controls (n = 39) Sensitivity and specificity of a rapid NPT by clinical symptoms and rhinomanometry, safety also evaluated Rapid NPT had a sensitivity of 83.7% and a specificity of 100%. No adverse reactions. Jang & Kim 1084 2015 2b Open controlled HDM allergy: 1 Strongly positive SPT (n = 99); 2 Weakly positive SPT (n = 53); 3 Negative SPT (n = 110) Sensitivity and specificity of NPT by acoustic rhinometry, TNSS TNSS ≥6.5 had 90.6% sensitivity and 77.4% specificity, acoustic rhinometry had 73.4% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity for diagnosis of AR. Agarwal et al. 1083 2013 2b Open controlled 1 Allergic to molds (n = 11); 2 Controls (n = 11) Results of NPT by optical rhinometry No significant difference between allergic and control subjects.

HDM = house dust mite; LOE = level of evidence; NPT = nasal provocation test; SPT = skin-prick test; TNSS = Total Nasal Symptom Score.

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 June 10.