Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/10668/12126
Title: | International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis. |
Authors: | Wise, Sarah K Lin, Sandra Y Toskala, Elina Orlandi, Richard R Akdis, Cezmi A Alt, Jeremiah A Azar, Antoine Baroody, Fuad M Bachert, Claus Canonica, G Walter Chacko, Thomas Cingi, Cemal Ciprandi, Giorgio Corey, Jacquelynne Cox, Linda S Creticos, Peter Socrates Custovic, Adnan Damask, Cecelia DeConde, Adam DelGaudio, John M Ebert, Charles S Eloy, Jean Anderson Flanagan, Carrie E Fokkens, Wytske J Franzese, Christine Gosepath, Jan Halderman, Ashleigh Hamilton, Robert G Hoffman, Hans Jürgen Hohlfeld, Jens M Houser, Steven M Hwang, Peter H Incorvaia, Cristoforo Jarvis, Deborah Khalid, Ayesha N Kilpeläinen, Maritta Kingdom, Todd T Krouse, Helene Larenas-Linnemann, Desiree Laury, Adrienne M Lee, Stella E Levy, Joshua M Luong, Amber U Marple, Bradley F McCoul, Edward D McMains, K Christopher Melén, Erik Mims, James W Moscato, Gianna Mullol, Joaquim Nelson, Harold S Patadia, Monica Pawankar, Ruby Pfaar, Oliver Platt, Michael P Reisacher, William Rondón, Carmen Rudmik, Luke Ryan, Matthew Sastre, Joaquin Schlosser, Rodney J Settipane, Russell A Sharma, Hemant P Sheikh, Aziz Smith, Timothy L Tantilipikorn, Pongsakorn Tversky, Jody R Veling, Maria C Wang, De Yun Westman, Marit Wickman, Magnus Zacharek, Mark |
Keywords: | IgE;allergen extract;allergen immunotherapy;allergic rhinitis;allergy;antihistamine;asthma;atopic dermatitis;avoidance;biologic;cockroach;conjunctivitis;consensus;corticosteroid;cough;cromolyn;decongestant;environment;eosinophilic esophagitis;epicutaneous immunotherapy;epidemiology;evidence-based medicine;food allergy;genetics;house dust mite;immunoglobulin E;immunotherapy;inhalant allergy;leukotriene;microbiome;occupational rhinitis;omalizumab;pathophysiology;perennial;pet dander;pollen;probiotic;quality of life;rhinitis;rhinosinusitis;risk factor;saline;seasonal;sensitization;sinusitis;sleep;socioeconomic;specific IgE;subcutaneous immunotherapy;sublingual immunotherapy;systematic review;total IgE;transcutaneous immunotherapy;validated survey |
metadata.dc.subject.mesh: | Adrenal Cortex Hormones Allergens Biological Products Complementary Therapies Cytokines Diagnosis, Differential Drug Therapy, Combination Endoscopy Environmental Exposure Epidemiologic Methods Histamine Antagonists Humans Immunoglobulin E Microbiota Nasal Decongestants Occupational Diseases Physical Examination Probiotics Quality of Life Respiratory Mucosa Rhinitis, Allergic Risk Factors Saline Solution Skin Tests Socioeconomic Factors |
Issue Date: | 2018 |
Abstract: | 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). 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. 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. 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. |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10668/12126 |
metadata.dc.identifier.doi: | 10.1002/alr.22073 |
Appears in Collections: | Producción 2020 |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
This item is protected by original copyright |
Except where otherwise noted, Items on the Andalusian Health Repository site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License.