Home Your basket
• A study of consonant inte...
   Price 10.50 €
• Primary nasal tuberculosi...
   Price 5.50 €
• Notes on voice and speech...
   Price 8.50 €
• Vertical extended hemi cr...
   Price 5.50 €
• Is ethmoidal adenocarcino...
   Price 10.50 €
• Is HIV/AIDS an independen...
   Price 10.50 €
• Paraganglioma of the cere...
   Price 5.50 €
• Adenocarcinoma of the end...
   Price 8.50 €
• Sentinel lymph node biops...
   Price 10.50 €
• Anatomy of the external a...
   Price 14.00 €
• Study of the platysma col...
   Price 10.50 €
• The length of the piston ...
   Price 10.50 €
• Adenoid cystic carcinoma ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Comparative study of anal...
   Price 14.00 €
• Management of a huge amel...
   Price 5.50 €
• Vestibular neuritis: aeti...
   Price 8.50 €
• Speech intelligibility in...
   Price 10.50 €
• Fungal infections of para...
   Price 8.50 €
• Intrapetrous cholesteatom...
   Price 10.50 €
• «Mini-rhinoplasty»...
   Price 10.50 €
• Prosthetics gains and sat...
   Price 12.50 €
• Facial aesthetic lipostru...
   Price 10.50 €
• Osteoid osteomas in the f...
   Price 5.50 €
• Distortion product otoaco...
   Price 10.50 €
• The «intra-cordal polyp»:...
   Price 5.50 €
• Cervical liposuction: A r...
   Price 10.50 €
• Allergic rhinitis...
   Price 8.50 €
• Pneumoparotid: a case rep...
   Price 8.50 €
• Schwannoma of the postcri...
   Price 5.50 €
• Laryngeal papillomatosis ...
   Price 5.50 €
• Efficacy and safety of mo...
   Price 10.50 €
• Prognostic value of mandi...
   Price 10.50 €
• From the physiologic perf...
   Price 14.00 €
• Presentation of a prototy...
   Price 10.50 €
• Is it possible to evolve ...
   Price 8.50 €

Total Order 321.00 €

contents
2019
   N# 1 |
2018
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2017
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2016
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2015
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2014
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2013
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2012
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2011
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2010
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2009
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2008
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2007
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2006
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2005
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2004
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2003
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2002
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2001
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
2000
   N# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1999
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1998
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
1997
   N# 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
1996
   N# 4 | 5 |

Click on the number of the review to see the content
Teaching bulletin CME
List of all teaching bulletins CME.
Editor reading committee
Editor reading committee.
To publish...
Instructions for authors
Archives Press and Books
Select of books and press articles.
Mailing list
News information letter.
Subscription prices


If you wish to adjust the size of the displayed characters, click in the high menu on "Your account" and choose the desired size.



  Contents > Previous page > Article detail print Order
o Issue N# 3 - 2007 o

RHINOLOGY

Prospective evaluation of the method of measurement of the Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) in allergic rhinitis. Observational study «Pratic in ORL»


Authors : Serrano E, Klossek J. M, Didier A, Dreyfus I, Sévenier F, Dessanges J. F (Toulouse)

Ref. : Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 2007;128,3:173-177.

Article published in french
Downloadable PDF document french



Summary : Objectives: To establish the ENT specialists's interest for the nasal obstruction measurement by the Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) for the primary care medical management of patients with allergic rhinitis. Material and Methods: A nation wide mail survey was conducted on the whole set of 2,800 French ENT specialists. Physicians had to use the PNIF in 4-consecutive patients with allergic rhinitis and assess through a questionnaire their interest for this tool. Results: About 8% of all ENTs (n=228) responded. 65.3% of them had used the PNIF with their 4 patients, 29.7% used it in only 1 to 3 of their patients and 5% did not use it at all. The PNIF was mainly used in moderate to severe rhinitis (94%) in contrast with mild rhinitis (32%) and in persistent rhinitis (94.2%) compared to intermittent rhinitis (54.8%). The primary motivation to use the PNIF on a systematic basis was to quantitatively assess nasal obstruction and to obtain an objective measurement of nasal obstruction. Conversely, the reasons for not using the PNIF were the needless of an objective measurement of nasal obstruction, the drawback of the PNIF in the patient physician relationship and lack of patient’s acceptance of the device. Most physicians considered training for a correct usage of the PNIF was easy. Finally, about 2 thirds of the sample gave a positive rating on the usefulness of the PNIF for their patients. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the interest of the praticioners to dispose of a simple and reliable tool for the follow up of nasal obstruction in allergic rhinitis.

Price : 10.50 €      order
|


Subscribe online - Pay by credit card!


© Copyright 1999-2024 - Revue de Laryngologie   Réalisation - Hébergement ELIDEE