Background In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence‐based findings and recommendation from the full document. Methods ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence‐based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. Results ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. Conclusion The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

No abstract

Objective To systematically review the evidence for the use of cognitive screening tools for adults with postlingual hearing loss. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Library) electronic databases were searched from inception until October 4, 2018. Review Methods Articles were reviewed for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. The references of included articles were hand-searched for additional relevant articles. Data were extracted by 2 independent extractors. Results Of 2092 articles imported from the search, 81 were included for the review. Nearly a third (31%, n = 25) included patients with profound hearing loss. In total, 23 unique tools were used for 105 unique applications. The Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) was the most commonly used (54%, n = 55), followed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (19%, n = 10). Nearly half of the tools were used to define patient inclusion or exclusion in a study (48%, n = 50), followed by examination of a change after an intervention (26%, n = 27). Two articles attempted to study the validity of the MMSE and MoCA for screening patients with mild to moderate hearing loss and found mixed effects of the auditory components. There were no validation studies identified from the search. Conclusion Many different cognitive screening tools have been used to study patients with postlingual hearing loss. The effects of the auditory components of these tools may be deleterious but ultimately remain unclear from the available evidence. To date, there has been no validation of any cognitive screening tool to be used for adults with postlingual hearing loss.