is the official Journal of the European and International Rhinologic Societies and appears quarterly in March, June, September and December. Cited in Pubmed, Current Contents, Index Medicus, Exerpta Medica and Embase Founded in 1963 by H.A.E. van Dishoeck, Rhinology is a worldwide non-profit making journal. The journal publishes original papers on basic research as well as clinical studies in the major field of rhinology, including physiology, diagnostics, pathology, immunology, medical therapy and surgery of both the nose and paranasal sinuses. Review articles and short communications are also pulished. All papers are peer-reviewed. Letters-to-the-editor provide a forum for comments on published papers, and are not subject to editorial revision except for correction of English language.In-depth studies that are too long to be included into a regular issue can be published as a supplement. Supple ments are not subject to peer-review.

Flow (PNIF) is a cheap, simple, easily performed method to assess nasal patency and it is suitable for serial measurements and for home use. The purpose of this study was to establish normative unilateral PNIF data for a healthy adult population and provide charts relating unilateral PNIF normal values with various explanatory variables. Methods and results: Repeated measurements of PNIF and unilateral PNIF were performed in 109 volunteers. Ninety seven of these fulfilled the study criteria and all of them were non-smokers, non-asthmatic, without nose and paranasal sinus problems, with ages ranging from 13 to 80 years. Data were statistically analysed and tables were produced relating unilateral PNIF to height which was the only studied variable that correlated statistically with unilateral PNIF. Conclusions: The measurement of unilateral PNIF, providing the present data are confirmed in a larger series, could be a useful method to study single nostril patency to aid diagnosis of nasal disease, especially when it is necessary to assess the functional effects of unilateral nasal septal deviations or in all cases where there is a suspicion of a unilateral nasal occlusion. This pilot study provides initial normative unilateral PNIF data.

Objective measures can be used to assist the clinician to diagnose and treat nasal obstruction and also to quantify nasal obstruction in research. Objective measurements of nasal obstruction are as important as objective measurements of lung function. peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), acoustic rhinometry (AR) and rhinomanometry (RM), with their specific peculiarity, assess different aspects of nasal obstruction. From the studies available in the literature, it seems that these methods roughly correlate with each other and that all of them can be alternatively utilized very well in research as well as in clinical practice. This review describes the various methods that can be used to measure nasal patency, airflow and resistance, mainly peak nasal inspiratory flow, rhinomanometry and acoustic rhinometry. PNIF has been demonstrated to be reproducible and as good an indication of objective nasal patency as formal rhinomanometry and has the advantage to be cheap, simple and suitable for serial measurements and for home use even in the paediatric population. PNIF normative data are available for children, adults and elderly subjects, and the availability of unilateral PNIF normal values allows evaluation of nasal sides separately. Just as in the lower airways, objective and subjective evaluation gives different information that together optimizes the diagnosis and the treatment of our patients. We argue that PNIF should be used regularly in every outpatient clinic that treats patients with nasal obstruction.

We hope the current manuscript will encourage clinicians and researchers to adopt a common language, and in so doing, increase the methodological quality, consistency and generalisability of work in this field.

is the official Journal of the European and International Rhinologic Societies and appears quarterly in March, June, September and December. Cited in Pubmed, Current Contents, Index Medicus, Exerpta Medica and Embase Founded in 1963 by H.A.E. van Dishoeck, Rhinology is a worldwide non-profit making journal. The journal publishes original papers on basic research as well as clinical studies in the major field of rhinology, including physiology, diagnostics, pathology, immunology, medical therapy and surgery of both the nose and paranasal sinuses. Review articles and short communications are also pulished. All papers are peer-reviewed. Letters-to-the-editor provide a forum for comments on published papers, and are not subject to editorial revision except for correction of English language. In-depth studies that are too long to be included into a regular issue can be published as a supplement. Supple ments are not subject to peer-review.

Objectives To determine the prevalence of olfactory and taste dysfunction (OD; TD) among COVID‐19 positive health care workers (HCWs), their associated risk factors and prognosis. Methods Between May and June 2020, a longitudinal multicenter study was conducted on symptomatic COVID‐19 PCR confirmed HCWs (COVID‐19 positive) in London and Padua. Results Hundred and fourteen COVID‐19 positive HCWs were surveyed with a response rate of 70.6% over a median follow‐up period of 52 days. UK prevalence of OD and TD was 73.1% and 69.2%, respectively. There was a male to female ratio of 1:3 with 81.6% being white, 43.7% being nurses/health care assistants (HCAs), and 39.3% being doctors. In addition, 53.2% of them worked on COVID‐19 wards. Complete recovery was reported in 31.8% for OD and 47.1% for TD with a 52 days follow‐up. The job role of doctors and nurses negatively influenced smell ( P = .04 and P = .02) and taste recovery ( P = .02 and P = .01). Ethnicity (being white) showed to positively influence only taste recovery ( P = .04). Sex (being female) negatively influenced OD and TD recovery only in Paduan HCWs ( P = .02 and P = .011, respectively). Working on a COVID‐19 ward did not influence prognosis. Conclusions The prevalence of OD and TD was considerably higher in HCWs. The prognosis for OD and TD recovery was worse for nurses/HCAs and doctors but working on a COVID‐19 ward did not influence prognosis. Sixty‐eight percent of surveyed HCWs at 52 days continued to experience OD or TD requiring additional future medical management capacity. Level of Evidence 4.

Background: The nasal cycle is the spontaneous, reciprocal congestion and decongestion of the nasal mucosa during the day and it is present in almost 70-80% of healthy adults. The German physician Richard Kayser first described it in 1895. Since then, the number of papers focused on this fascinating issue has continued to flourish. Main body: Even though there are a high number of publications on this topic, the understanding of nasal cycle is still very poor. The present review tries to offer a comprehensive analysis of this issue investigating all the physiologic and pathologic conditions able to modify the nasal cycle. A section of methods used for its evaluation has been also included in this review. Conclusion: The influence of the nasal cycle on nasal airflow must be considered during any rhinologic evaluation, especially if investigating the need for septal/turbinates surgery, rather than nasal medical therapy alone. The nasal cycle is a normal phenomenon and must be recognized in order to differentiate it from the pathologic causes of nasal obstruction.

These outcomes confirmed PNIF sensitivity and reliability also in determining the changes in nasal patency occurring after physical exercise. The active vasoconstriction of nasal mucosa associated with the reduction of blood flow to the olfactory epithelium due to physical exercise may be compensated for by the increase of olfactory molecules that reach the olfactory mucosa because of nasal mucosal shrinkage: this mechanism could explain the stability of mean olfactory threshold after physical exercise.