Objectives: To determine the representation of women in leadership positions within otolaryngology societies and to compare their academic rank and research productivity to men. Methods: The leadership positions of all U.S. otolaryngology societies were compiled. The Medicare Physician Compare database was used to obtain gender and medical school graduation year for all otolaryngologists. An online search was used to determine board member's academic faculty rank. The Scopus database was used to determine an individual's number of publications, citations, and h-index. All websites were accessed from July 2019 to October 2019. Results: Of the 200 leadership positions, there were 160 unique individuals available for analysis. Of those, 23% were female. In comparison, 18% of all otolaryngologists in the United States are female. The average medical school graduation year was significantly more recent for female leaders (1997 vs. 1990, P < .001) than males, which is similar to all otolaryngologists (2001 vs. 1993, P < .001). Stratifying by gender alone, women averaged significantly fewer publications, citations, and h-indices compared to men (P < .05), and were also less likely to be professors (P < .01). When considering both gender and graduation year, significant differences among academic productivity were only noted for those graduating between 1990 to 1999. Among all board members who graduated after 2000, women comprised a majority of those in leadership positions (52%). Conclusion: Leadership positions in otolaryngology societies reflect the changing demographic of otolaryngologists in the United States. There is proportionate representation, and the more recently graduated female physicians show the same research productivity as their male counterparts.

No abstract

Background: With a rapid proliferation of clinical trials to study novel medical treatments for CRS, the objective of this study was to study the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) in medically-managed CRS patients. Methods: A total of 183 medically-treated CRS patients were recruited. All patients completed a SNOT-22 at enrollment and subsequent follow up visit. Distribution and anchor-based methods were used for MCID calculation. These data were combined with data from a previously published study on SNOT-22 MCID in 247 medically managed CRS patients to determine a final recommended MCID value using the combined cohort of 430 patients. Results: In our cohort, distribution- and anchor-based methods—using both sinus-specific and general health anchors—provided greatest support for a 12-point SNOT-22 MCID, which had approximately 55% sensitivity but 81% specificity for detecting patients explicitly reporting improvement in their sinus symptoms and general health. In the combined cohort of 430 patients, we also found greatest support for a 12-point SNOT-22 MCID, which had approximately 57% sensitivity and 81% specificity for detecting patients explicitly reporting improvement in their sinus symptoms and general health. We also find evidence that the MCID value may be higher in CRS patients without nasal polyps compared to those with nasal polyps. Conclusions: Our results - which include data from patients from two different institutions and regions - confirm a SNOT-22 MCID of 12 in medically managed CRS patients. The SNOT-22 MCID was specific but not sensitive for identifying CRS patients experiencing improvement in symptoms or general health.