International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

Some characterizations of discrete distributions based on weak records

weak records, geometric distribution, partial independence, identical distribution, characterizations of discrete distributions, difference equations,

An ‘apples to apples’ comparison of various tests for exponentiality

The exponential distribution is a popular model both in practice and in theoretical work. As a result, a multitude of tests based on varied characterisations have been developed for testing the hypothesis that observed data are realised from this distribution. Many of the recently developed tests contain a tuning parameter, usually appearing in a weight function. In this paper we compare the powers of 20 tests for exponentiality—some containing a tuning parameter and some that do not. To ensure a fair ‘apples to apples’ comparison between each of the tests, we employ a data-dependent choice of the tuning parameter for those tests that contain these parameters. The comparisons are conducted for various samples sizes and for a large number of alternative distributions. The results of the simulation study show that the test with the best overall power performance is the Baringhaus and Henze test, followed closely by the test by Henze and Meintanis; both tests contain a tuning parameter. The score test by Cox and Oakes performs the best among those tests that do not include a tuning parameter.The first author thanks the National Research Foundation of South Africa for financial support.https://link.springer.com/journal/1802018-05-20hj2017Statistic