Sarah K. WiseSandra Y. LinElina ToskalaRichard R. OrlandiCezmi A. AkdisJeremiah A. AltAntoine AzarFuad M. BaroodyClaus BachertG. Walter CanonicaThomas ChackoCemal CingiGiorgio CiprandiJacquelynne CoreyLinda S. CoxPeter Socrates CreticosAdnan CustovicCecelia DamaskAdam DeCondeJohn M. DelGaudioCharles S. EbertJean Anderson EloyCarrie E. FlanaganWytske J. FokkensChristine FranzeseJan GosepathAshleigh HaldermanRobert G. HamiltonHans Jürgen HoffmanJens M. HohlfeldSteven M. HouserPeter H. HwangCristoforo IncorvaiaDeborah JarvisAyesha N. KhalidMaritta KilpeläinenTodd T. KingdomHelene KrouseDesiree Larenas-LinnemannAdrienne M. LauryStella E. LeeJoshua M. LevyAmber U. LuongBradley F. MarpleEdward D. McCoulK. Christopher McMainsErik MelénJames W. MimsGianna MoscatoJoaquim MullolHarold S. NelsonMonica PatadiaRuby PawankarOliver PfaarMichael P. PlattWilliam ReisacherCarmen RondónLuke RudmikMatthew RyanJoaquin SastreRodney J. SchlosserRussell A. SettipaneHemant P. SharmaAziz SheikhTimothy L. SmithPongsakorn TantilipikornJody R. TverskyMaria C. VelingDe Yun WangMarit WestmanMagnus WickmanMark ZacharekUniversity of Texas Rio Grande ValleyOspedale Policlinico San MartinoHumanitas UniversityNational Jewish HealthUniversiteit GentWake Forest UniversityUniversity of California, San DiegoTemple UniversityAarhus UniversitetThe University of ChicagoEskişehir Osmangazi ÜniversitesiUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonUniversity of EdinburghUniversity of Michigan, Ann ArborTurun Yliopistollinen KeskussairaalaUniversity of UtahGeorge Washington University School of Medicine and Health SciencesUniversity of Missouri SystemMedizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH)Medical University of South CarolinaBoston UniversityNippon Medical SchoolOchsner Health SystemThe University of North Carolina SystemNational University of SingaporeUniversität HeidelbergOregon Health and Science UniversityUniversity of PittsburghUniversità degli Studi di PaviaImperial College LondonHospital Regional Universitario Carlos HayaMahidol UniversityStanford UniversityKarolinska InstitutetSwiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma ResearchBrown UniversityWeill Cornell Medical CollegeUniformed Services University of the Health SciencesJohns Hopkins UniversityRutgers New Jersey Medical SchoolHarvard Medical SchoolUniversity of AmsterdamUniversity of CalgaryUniversitat de BarcelonaEmory UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityUniversity of Colorado at BoulderHospital Universitario Fundacion Jiminez DiazASST Pini/CTOLoyola UniversityOtorhinolaryngologyOtolaryngologyHospital Médica SurUniversity of Texas SouthwesternSan Antonio Military Medical CenterAllergy/Immunology2019-08-282019-08-282018-02-01International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology. Vol.8, No.2 (2018), 108-35220426984204269762-s2.0-85042124858https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/46992© 2018 ARS-AAOA, LLC Background: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). 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.Mahidol UniversityMedicineArticleSCOPUS10.1002/alr.22073