- (1) Emory University, grid.189967.8
- (2) Johns Hopkins University, grid.21107.35
- (3) Temple University, grid.264727.2
- (4) University of Utah, grid.223827.e
- (5) University of Zurich, grid.7400.3
- (6) Otolaryngology, University of Chicago, USA.
- (7) Ghent University, grid.5342.0
- (8) Humanitas University, grid.452490.e
- (9) Allergy/Immunology, Private Practice, USA.
- (10) Eskişehir Osmangazi University, grid.164274.2
- (11) Allergy/Immunology, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Italy.
- (12) Imperial College London, grid.7445.2
- (13) Otolaryngology, Private Practice, USA.
- (14) University of California, San Diego, grid.266100.3
- (15) University of North Carolina System, grid.410711.2
- (16) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, grid.430387.b
- (17) University of Amsterdam, grid.7177.6
- (18) University of Missouri, grid.134936.a
- (19) Otorhinolaryngology, Helios Kliniken Wiesbaden, Germany.
- (20) The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, grid.267313.2
- (21) Aarhus University, grid.7048.b, AU
- (22) Hannover Medical School, grid.10423.34
- (23) Case Western Reserve University, grid.67105.35
- (24) Stanford University, grid.168010.e
- (25) Allergy/Immunology, ASST Pini/CTO Milan, Italy.
- (26) Harvard University, grid.38142.3c
- (27) Turku University Hospital, grid.410552.7
- (28) Otolaryngology, University of Colorado, USA.
- (29) The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, grid.449717.8
- (30) Hospital Médica Sur, grid.414741.3
- (31) San Antonio Military Medical Center, grid.416653.3
- (32) University of Pittsburgh, grid.21925.3d
- (33) Otolaryngology, McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center Houston, USA.
- (34) Ochsner Medical Center, grid.240416.5
- (35) Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, grid.265436.0
- (36) Karolinska Institute, grid.4714.6
- (37) Wake Forest University, grid.241167.7
- (38) University of Pavia, grid.8982.b
- (39) Otolaryngology, Universitat de Barcelona, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Spain.
- (40) National Jewish Health, grid.240341.0
- (41) Loyola University Chicago, grid.164971.c
- (42) Nippon Medical School, grid.410821.e
- (43) Heidelberg University, grid.7700.0
- (44) Boston University, grid.189504.1
- (45) Cornell University, grid.5386.8
- (46) Allergy, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Spain.
- (47) University of Calgary, grid.22072.35
- (48) Allergology, Hospital Universitario Fundacion Jiminez Diaz, Spain.
- (49) Medical University of South Carolina, grid.259828.c
- (50) Brown University, grid.40263.33
- (51) Allergy/Immunology, Children's National Health System, George Washington University School of Medicine, USA.
- (52) University of Edinburgh, grid.4305.2
- (53) Oregon Health & Science University, grid.5288.7
- (54) Mahidol University, grid.10223.32
- (55) National University of Singapore, grid.4280.e
- (56) Otolaryngology, University of Michigan, USA.
BACKGROUND: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.