This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow P3Rs: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paradise, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Janosky, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paradise, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Janosky, J. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Respiratory Tract

PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 6 June 1998, pp. 979-986

Assessment of Adenoidal Obstruction in Children: Clinical Signs Versus Roentgenographic Findings

Received Sep 19, 1997; accepted Dec 11, 1997.

Jack L. Paradise*, Dagger , §, Beverly S. Bernard*, Dagger , D. Kathleen ColbornDagger , and Janine E. Janosky§

From the * Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; the Dagger  Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh; and the § Department of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Objective.  As part of a comprehensive study of indications for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, we investigated the reliability of standardized clinical assessments and standardized roentgenographic assessments of adenoidal obstruction of the nasopharynx, and the degree of correlation between clinical assessments and roentgenographic assessments.

Methods.  We rated the degree of patients' mouth breathing and patients' speech hyponasality on a 4-point scale (none = 1; mild = 2; moderate = 3; marked = 4), we averaged the ratings for each child to obtain a Nasal Obstruction Index, and we determined levels of interobserver agreement concerning the ratings. We classified lateral soft-tissue roentgenograms of the nasopharynx, based on assessments of adenoid size and of nasopharyngeal airway patency, as showing either no obstruction, borderline obstruction, or obstruction, and we determined levels of inter- and intraobserver agreement concerning the classifications. Finally, we determined correlations in individual patients between clinical ratings and roentgenographic ratings of nasal/nasopharyngeal obstruction, and calculated the predictive values of clinical ratings based on roentgenographic ratings as the gold standard.

Results.  In sets of paired examinations, weighted kappa  values for interobserver agreement concerning mouth breathing (total, 235 children) and speech hyponasality (total, 648 children) ranged from 0.84 to 0.91. The value for interobserver agreement concerning roentgenographic assessment of nasopharyngeal airway status (207 children) was 0.92, and for intraobserver agreement (191 children) 0.88. The Kendall's tau  b value for concordance between Nasal Obstruction Index values and roentgenographic ratings (1033 children) was 0.51. Nasal Obstruction Index values at the lower and upper extremes---ie, 1.0 and >= 3.5, respectively---were highly predictive of concordant roentgenographic ratings.

Conclusions.  We conclude that standardized clinical ratings of the degree of children's mouth breathing and speech hyponasality provide reliable and reasonably valid assessments of the presence and degree of adenoidal obstruction of the nasopharyngeal airway. These clinical assessments are particularly valid at the extremes of either marked obstruction or no obstruction. Clinical assessment alone may be insufficient to establish the presence of adenoidal obstruction, but clinical assessment alone when findings are unequivocally negative can suffice to rule out adenoidal obstruction with a high degree of confidence.

Key words: adenoidal obstruction, nasal obstruction, nasopharyngeal airway, clinical assessment, roentgenographic assessment, mouth breathing, speech hyponasality, diagnostic reliability, diagnostic validity.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
G. Criscuoli, S. D'Amora, G. Ripa, G. Cinquegrana, N. Mansi, N. Impagliazzo, and A. Pisacane
Frequency of Surgery Among Children Who Have Adenotonsillar Hypertrophy and Improve After Treatment With Nasal Beclomethasone
Pediatrics, March 1, 2003; 111(3): e236 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
J. L. Paradise, C. D. Bluestone, D. K. Colborn, B. S. Bernard, H. E. Rockette, and M. Kurs-Lasky
Tonsillectomy and Adenotonsillectomy for Recurrent Throat Infection in Moderately Affected Children
Pediatrics, July 1, 2002; 110(1): 7 - 15.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
J. L. Paradise, C. D. Bluestone, D. K. Colborn, B. S. Bernard, C. G. Smith, H. E. Rockette, and M. Kurs-Lasky
Adenoidectomy and Adenotonsillectomy for Recurrent Acute Otitis Media: Parallel Randomized Clinical Trials in Children Not Previously Treated With Tympanostomy Tubes
JAMA, September 8, 1999; 282(10): 945 - 953.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

P3Rs:

Read all P3Rs

Adenoid size
DR.Shrikiran Hebbar, et al.
Pediatrics Online, 12 Sep 2005 [Full text]