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.

Objective Assess the quality of a new disposable nasopharyngolaryngoscope (NPL) through resident feedback at multiple academic institutions and provide a cost analysis of reusable and disposable NPLs at a single academic center. Study Design An online survey was distributed to residents at institutions throughout the United States that have implemented use of a disposable NPL (Ambu aScope 4 Rhinolaryngo). Setting Cost analysis performed at a single academic center. Resident survey distributed to multiple residency programs throughout the United States. Subjects and Methods The survey collected demographic information and asked residents to rate the new disposable NPL and other reusable NPLs using a 5‐point Likert scale. A cost analysis was performed of both reusable and disposable NPLs using information obtained at a single academic center. Results The survey was distributed to 109 residents throughout the country and 37 were completed for a response rate of 33.9%. The disposable NPL was comparable to reusable NPLs based on ergonomics and maneuverability, inferior in imaging quality (P < .001), and superior in setup (P < .001), convenience (P < .001), and rated better overall (P < .04). The disposable NPL was found to be cheaper per use than reusable NPLs at $171.82 and $170.36 compared to $238.17 and $197.88 per use for the reusable NPL if the life span is 1 year and 5 years respectively. Conclusion Disposable NPLs may offer an alternative option and initial feedback obtained from resident physicians is favorable. Cost analysis favors disposable NPLs as the cost‐effective option. Level of Evidence NA.

No abstract

The prevalence of MRSA colonization among otitis-prone children was similar to rates reported among the general pediatric community. Methicillin-resistant S aureus colonization at the time of bilateral myringotomy and tube insertion was not predictive of subsequent otorrhea.