We conducted a study to determine the demographic traits, trainingcharacteristics, andgeographic distribution of otolaryngologists in the United States usingpublicly available data. We then correlated ourfindings with U.S. census data. Univariate analysis wasperformed toanalyze results, with a p valueof <0.05 determinedassignificant. Weuseddatafrom theAmerican BoardofOtolaryngology's listof 18,587 board-certified allopathic otolaryngologists through 2013 and the American Osteopathic Colleges of Ophthalmology & Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery's list of 428 osteopathic otolaryngologists. From these two databases, 9,642 otolaryngologists met inclusion criteria, which includedan activepractice in the United States and an age of 70yearsand younger. This group was made up of8,185 men (84.9%) and 1,449women(15.0%); wewere not ableto identify the sex of8 otolaryngologists (0.1%). The medianage ofthewomen wassignificantly lower than that of the men (54 vs. 48 yr. p < 0.001). A total of 8,510 otolaryngologists (88.3%) graduatedfrom a u.s. allopathic medical school, and 8,520(88.4%) graduatedfrom a u.s. allopathic residency program. Wedeterminedthat 25.9% of otolaryngologists established theirpractice in thesame metropolitan statistical area where they completed their residency training. Olderpractitioners (p < 0.001) and women(p < 0.001) were significantly morelikelytostayin thesamearea thanyoungerphysicians and men. In terms ofpopulation, 61.8% of the otolaryngologists practiced in metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents; by comparison, these areas represent only 55.3% of the total U.S. population, indicating that otolaryngologists are over-represented in larger U.S. cities.

Objective To identify resident applicant characteristics that increase the odds of matching to Otolaryngology residency. Study Design Cross-sectional analysis. Methods Residency applications to our institution from 2009 through 2013 were reviewed. The available data represented 81.1% of applicants to Otolaryngology programs nationwide. Online public records were searched to determine whether an applicant matched to an Otolaryngology residency position. Factors that were significantly associated with the odds of matching were determined using logistic regression. Results A total of 1,479 unique applications were analyzed. On univariate analysis, 27 demographic, academic, personal, medical school, prior training, and application-specific factors were associated with the odds of matching into Otolaryngology. On multivariate analysis, indicators of academic achievement, including AOA status, whether applicant received awards, and publications were significantly associated with the odds of matching (OR 2.03, 1.39, 1.66, respectively). The odds of matching increased with increasing Step 1 scores (p<0.001). Attending a medical school ranked by the US News & World Report and being a US citizen born in the US significantly increased odds of matching (OR 1.55 and 2.04, respectively), while being a non-US Senior significantly decreased the odds of matching (OR 0.33). Conclusion Multiple factors are associated with successfully matching into an Otolaryngology residency. While this information allows medical students to determine the strength of their application, these criteria have not been correlated with resident success. We urge selection committees to begin identifying applicant selection methods that reflect the values we want to cultivate in our future colleagues.

Objectives To identify how applicants to otolaryngology residency determine how to apply to, interview with, and rank programs on the interview trail and to determine the extent of the financial burden of the otolaryngology interview trail. Study Design Web-based survey distributed in March and April 2016. Setting Otolaryngology residency applicants throughout the United States. Subjects and Methods Applicants to otolaryngology residency during the 2016 match cycle and current otolaryngology residents were surveyed. Results Median number of applications, interview offers, interviews attended, and programs ranked was not different during the 2016 match and the previous 5 match years. The most important factor affecting the number of applications was the need to apply widely to ensure sufficient interview offers. The most common reason for declining an interview offer was scheduling conflict. Applicants during the 2016 match spent a median of $5400 applying and interviewing for otolaryngology residency. Conclusions Median number of applications, interview offers, interviews attended, and programs ranked has not changed. The most cited reason for applying to many programs was to increase the chances of matching, but this is not statistically likely to increase match success. We advocate for continued attempts to make the otolaryngology match process more transparent for both applicants and resident selection committees, but recognize that applicants are likely to continue to overapply for otolaryngology residency positions.

Background: Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA). Methods: Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence-based review (EBR), or evidencebased review with recommendations (EBR-R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results: The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA-associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated. Conclusion:This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence-based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

NA Laryngoscope, 127:2242-2246, 2017.