International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wise Sarah K, Lin Sandra Y, Toskala Elina, Orlandi Richard R, Akdis Cezmi A, Alt Jeremiah A, Azar Antoine, Baroody Fuad M, Bachert Claus, Canonica G Walter, Chacko Thomas, Cingi Cemal, Ciprandi Giorgio, Corey Jacquelynne, Cox Linda S, Creticos Peter Socrates, Custovic Adnan, Damask Cecelia, DeConde Adam, DelGaudio John M, Ebert Charles S, Eloy Jean Anderson, Flanagan Carrie E, Fokkens Wytske J, Franzese Christine, Gosepath Jan, Halderman Ashleigh, Hamilton Robert G, Hoffman Hans Jürgen, Hohlfeld Jens M, Houser Steven M, Hwang Peter H, Incorvaia Cristoforo, Jarvis Deborah, Khalid Ayesha N, Kilpeläinen Maritta, Kingdom Todd T, Krouse Helene, Larenas-Linnemann Desiree, Laury Adrienne M, Lee Stella E, Levy Joshua M, Luong Amber U, Marple Bradley F, McCoul Edward D, McMains K Christopher, Melén Erik, Mims James W, Moscato Gianna, Mullol Joaquim, Nelson Harold S, Patadia Monica, Pawankar Ruby, Pfaar Oliver, Platt Michael P, Reisacher William, Rondón Carmen, Rudmik Luke, Ryan Matthew, Sastre Joaquin, Schlosser Rodney J, Settipane Russell A, Sharma Hemant P, Sheikh Aziz, Smith Timothy L, Tantilipikorn Pongsakorn, Tversky Jody R, Veling Maria C, Wang De Yun, Westman Marit, Wickman Magnus, Zacharek Mark
Аннотация
METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.
RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.
CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.