Noise-induced hearing loss is the most prevalent occupational disease worldwide and is historically associated with the Industrial Revolution. This study analyses early descriptions of this disorder during the pre-industrial period in the work of the Italian physician Bernardino Ramazzini (1633–1714).

Primary and secondary historical literature were reviewed.

Ramazzini described hearing loss in corn millers and in coppersmiths and recognised that this disorder is irreversible and progressive when exposure to noise continues. He also seemed to describe tinnitus. He further suggested the use of earplugs as a preventive measure for these classes of workers. Ramazzini's anatomical and pathological knowledge appears to be based on ancient authors; he did not discuss contemporaneous medical authors’ work on hearing function.

Despite some limitations, Ramazzini's work appears pioneering for his time and represents an important milestone in the history of otolaryngology.

For centuries, the tympanum has remained the only visible structure of the organ of hearing. This study aimed to trace the understanding of the tympanic membrane from antiquity to the early twentieth century.

A review was conducted of primary and secondary historical and scientific literature describing the tympanic membrane anatomy.

Although ancient polymaths sensed that sounds were vibrations that could spread in the air and be perceived by the hearing organ, there were numerous misconceptions about the tympanum until human dissections performed during the Renaissance. The tympanum was correctly described only centuries later when technological advances enabled otologists to understand it as a fundamental part of the hearing organ.

The tympanic membrane history reflects key stages in medical knowledge; limited for centuries, a great technological leap was possible in the nineteenth century, contributing to the emergence of otologists and laying the foundations of modern otology.

This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of websites on chronic rhinosinusitis.

A total of 180 results from 3 different search engines regarding ‘chronic rhinosinusitis’, ‘sinusitis’ and ‘sinus infections’ were analysed for readability using the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score and Gunning Fog Index. The Discern tool was used to approximate information quality.

From 180 total searches, 69 unique websites were identified. These had an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level of 9.75 (95 per cent confidence interval = 9.12–10.4), a Flesch Reading Ease Score of 45.0 (41.0–49.0) and a Gunning Fog Index of 13.7 (12.9–14.4), which equates to the average reading level of a college or university student. Discern scores were variable but consistently showed good-quality information.

Chronic rhinosinusitis information is of a high quality but is for a reading level higher than that of the average adult. Standardising patient information should ensure adequate comprehension and improve patient compliance.

To describe a method of using real patients in teaching ENT to undergraduates and to examine whether being a case patient affected patient satisfaction.

In a cross-sectional study, 68 teaching-involved patients (case patients) with a suspected common ENT illness and 68 matched (in terms of age, sex and region of complaint) control patients evaluated the health service and their encounter with the physician. The students saw the case patients first independently and then saw the patient with the teacher physician. The controls were treated in a normal way.

Fifty-eight case patients (84 per cent) and 65 control patients (95 per cent) answered the questionnaire. The median duration of the visit was significantly longer for the case patients than the controls (115 vs 60 minutes). Almost all patients in both groups graded the overall quality of the health service, and the variables describing various aspects of the setting and the encounter with the physician, as either good or excellent.

Patients who took part in the undergraduate teaching of ENT diseases were equally content with their primary visit as the control patients, even though their visit took a markedly longer time.