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

Regional Differences in Gender Promotion and Scholarly Productivity in Otolaryngology

Objectives To identify whether regional differences exist in gender disparities in scholarly productivity and faculty rank among academic otolaryngologists. Study Design and Setting Academic otolaryngologists\u27 bibliometric data analyses. Methods Online faculty listings from 98 otolaryngology departments were organized by gender, academic rank, fellowship training status, and institutional location. The Scopus database was used to assess bibliometrics of these otolaryngologists, including the h-index, number of publications, and publication experience. Results Analysis included 1127 otolaryngologists, 916 men (81.3%) and 211 women (18.7%). Female faculty comprised 15.4% in the Midwest, 18.8% in the Northeast, 21.3% in the South, and 19.0% in the West (P = .44). Overall, men obtained significantly higher senior academic ranks (associate professor or professor) compared to women (59.8% vs 40.2%, P \u3c .0001). Regional gender differences in senior faculty were found in the South (59.8% men vs 37.3% women, P = .0003) and Northeast (56.4% men vs 24.1% women, P \u3c .0001) with concomitant gender differences in scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index (South, P = .0003; Northeast, P = .0001). Among geographic subdivisions, female representation at senior ranks was lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (22.0%), New England (30.8%), and West South Central (33.3%), while highest in Pacific (60.0%) and Mountain (71.4%) regions. No regional gender differences were found in fellowship training patterns (P-values \u3e .05). Conclusion Gender disparities in academic rank and scholarly productivity exist most notably in the Northeast, where women in otolaryngology are most underrepresented relative to men at senior academic ranks and in scholarly productivity

Do AAO-HNSF CORE Grants Predict Future NIH Funding Success?

Objective. To determine (1) whether academic otolaryngologists who have received an American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant are more likely to procure future National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding; (2) whether CORE grants or NIH Career Development (K) awards have a stronger association with scholarly impact. Study Design and Setting. Historical cohort. Methods. Scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, publication experience, and prior grant history, were determined for CORE-funded and non-CORE-funded academic otolaryngologists. All individuals were assessed for NIH funding history. Results. Of 192 academic otolaryngologists with a CORE funding history, 39.6% had active or prior NIH awards versus 15.1% of 1002 non-CORE-funded faculty (P \u3c .0001). Higher proportions of CORE-funded otolaryngologists have received K-series and R-series grants from the NIH (P-values \u3c .05). K-grant recipients had higher h-indices than CORE recipients (12.6 vs 7.1, P \u3c .01). Upon controlling for rank and experience, this difference remained significant among junior faculty. Conclusions. A higher proportion of academic otolaryngologists with prior AAO-HNSF CORE funding have received NIH funding relative to their non-CORE-funded peers, suggesting that the CORE program may be successful in its stated goals of preparing individuals for the NIH peer review process, although further prospective study is needed to evaluate a cause and effect relationship. Individuals with current or prior NIH K-grants had greater research productivity than those with CORE funding history. Both cohorts had higher scholarly impact values than previously published figures among academic otolaryngologists, highlighting that both CORE grants and NIH K-grants awards are effective career development resources