Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 10.
Published in final edited form as: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018 Feb;8(2):108–352. doi: 10.1002/alr.22073

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 & Kim1084 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.