Author
Brent A. Senior
Other affiliations: University of Pennsylvania, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Henry Ford Health System ...read more
Bio: Brent A. Senior is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Sinusitis. The author has an hindex of 37, co-authored 163 publications receiving 8835 citations. Previous affiliations of Brent A. Senior include University of Pennsylvania & Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Amsterdam1, Ghent University2, University of Chicago3, University of Pennsylvania4, Lund University5, Auckland City Hospital6, University of Antwerp7, University of New South Wales8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust10, Queen's University11, University of Zagreb12, Northwestern University13, Medical University of Łódź14, University of Aberdeen15, Medical University of South Carolina16, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill17, University of Southampton18, University of São Paulo19, National University of Singapore20, Flinders University21
TL;DR: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012 and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery.
Abstract: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
2,853 citations
University of Amsterdam1, Ghent University2, University of Chicago3, University of Pennsylvania4, Auckland City Hospital5, University of Antwerp6, University of New South Wales7, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven8, St Thomas' Hospital9, University of Nottingham10, University of Zagreb11, Northwestern University12, Medical University of Łódź13, University of Aberdeen14, Innsbruck Medical University15, Medical University of South Carolina16, University of Southampton17, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia18, University of São Paulo19, National University of Singapore20, Flinders University21, University of Adelaide22
TL;DR: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012 as discussed by the authors is the update of similar evidence-based position papers published in 2005 and 2007, it contains chapters on definitions and classification, we now also proposed definitions for difficult to treat rhinositis, control of disease, and better definitions for rhinosinitis in children.
Abstract: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007. The document contains chapters on definitions and classification, we now also proposed definitions for difficult to treat rhinosinusitis, control of disease and better definitions for rhinosinusitis in children. More emphasis is placed on the diagnosis and treatment of acute rhinosinusitis. Throughout the document the terms chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) are used to further point out differences in pathophysiology and treatment of these two entities. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. Last but not least all available evidence for management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is analyzed and presented and management schemes based on the evidence are proposed. This executive summary for otorhinolaryngologists focuses on the most important changes and issues for otorhinolaryngologists. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
1,608 citations
University of Utah1, University of Colorado Boulder2, Stanford University3, Oregon Health & Science University4, University of Chicago5, Rush University Medical Center6, University of Barcelona7, Harvard University8, Vanderbilt University9, University of Arizona10, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston11, University of Pennsylvania12, Emory University13, Université de Montréal14, Samsung Medical Center15, University of Auckland16, University of Pittsburgh17, University of Amsterdam18, University of Ioannina19, University of California, San Francisco20, Eastern Virginia Medical School21, University of New South Wales22, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven23, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust24, University of Lorraine25, University of British Columbia26, Northwestern University27, Georgia Regents University28, Johns Hopkins University29, New York University30, Korea University31, University of Texas at Austin32, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences33, Jikei University School of Medicine34, University of Washington35, University of Siena36, Medical College of Wisconsin37, University of Adelaide38, West Virginia University39, Innsbruck Medical University40, Pusan National University41, University of Calgary42, Medical University of South Carolina43, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill44, Cleveland Clinic45, Loyola University Chicago46, Cornell University47, Temple University48, University of São Paulo49, National University of Singapore50, San Antonio Military Medical Center51, University of Alabama at Birmingham52, University of Alberta53, Capital Medical University54
TL;DR: This dissertation aims to provide a history of Chinese medical practice in the United States from 1989 to 2002, a period chosen in order to explore its roots as well as specific cases up to and including the year in which descriptions of “modern China” began to circulate.
Abstract: Background The body of knowledge regarding rhinosinusitis(RS) continues to expand, with rapid growth in number of publications, yet substantial variability in the quality of those presentations. In an effort to both consolidate and critically appraise this information, rhinologic experts from around the world have produced the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR:RS). Methods Evidence-based reviews with recommendations(EBRRs) were developed for scores of topics, using previously reported methodology. Where existing evidence was insufficient for an EBRR, an evidence-based review (EBR)was produced. The sections were then synthesized and the entire manuscript was then reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results The resulting ICAR:RS document addresses multiple topics in RS, including acute RS (ARS), chronic RS (CRS)with and without nasal polyps (CRSwNP and CRSsNP), recurrent acute RS (RARS), acute exacerbation of CRS (AECRS), and pediatric RS. Conclusion As a critical review of the RS literature, ICAR:RS provides a thorough review of pathophysiology and evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment. It also demonstrates the significant gaps in our understanding of the pathophysiology and optimal management of RS. Too often the foundation upon which these recommendations are based is comprised of lower level evidence. It is our hope that this summary of the evidence in RS will point out where additional research efforts may be directed.
645 citations
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that excellent subjective results following FESS can be maintained in the long term with appropriate postoperative management and validates the concept that patients in whom the cavity can be normalized following surgery are unlikely to require further surgery.
Abstract: Although much has been reported on the short-term outcomes of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS), little has been reported with regard to its long-term impact on chronic sinusitis. The senior author (D.W.K.) previously reported detailed subjective and endoscopic follow-up on 120 patients at a mean of 18 months following surgery. This current study represents a long-term follow-up (average, 7.8 years) of 72 patients (60%) from the same cohort. Of patients responding to a question about overall symptoms, 98.4% (n = 66) reported improvement compared with before surgery. There was a trend toward continued subjective improvement in symptom scores with longer follow-up, but the changes did not reach statistical significance. Thirteen patients (18%) required subsequent surgical procedures. Preoperative stage, prior surgery, and other factors that might affect outcome were evaluated. The study demonstrates that excellent subjective results following FESS can be maintained in the long term with appropriate postoperative management. The study also validates the concept that patients in whom the cavity can be normalized following surgery are unlikely to require further surgery.
421 citations
University of Utah1, University of Colorado Denver2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Harvard University4, University of California, San Diego5, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston6, Medical College of Wisconsin7, Medical University of South Carolina8, Northwestern University9, Emory University10, University of Pennsylvania11, University of São Paulo12, Ghent University13, Sun Yat-sen University14, Karolinska Institutet15, University of Chicago16, Rush University Medical Center17, University of Barcelona18, University of California, Los Angeles19, Vanderbilt University20, University of Arizona21, University of Kansas22, Université de Montréal23, University of Auckland24, Rutgers University25, University of Amsterdam26, Columbia University27, Eastern Virginia Medical School28, University of New South Wales29, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven30, Guy's Hospital31, Stanford University32, University of British Columbia33, Mayo Clinic34, Johns Hopkins University35, Korea University36, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences37, Jikei University School of Medicine38, University of Washington39, University of Siena40, University of East Anglia41, University of Adelaide42, Pusan National University43, University of Calgary44, University of Cincinnati45, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill46, Cleveland Clinic47, University of Winnipeg48, Chulalongkorn University49, Cornell University50, National University of Singapore51, University of Alabama at Birmingham52, University of Alberta53, Capital Medical University54
TL;DR: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in the understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease.
Abstract: I. Executive summary BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. Methods ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.
299 citations
Cited by
More filters
Federal University of Bahia1, McMaster University2, University of Amsterdam3, National Institutes of Health4, Charité5, Catholic University of Cordoba6, University of Genoa7, Radboud University Nijmegen8, Transilvania University of Brașov9, Ghent University10, University of Tennessee Health Science Center11, University of Naples Federico II12, Laval University13, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais14, University of Oslo15, University of Manchester16, Aarhus University17, Imperial College London18, Erasmus University Rotterdam19, George Washington University20, Seoul National University21, Medical University of Łódź22, Hai phong University Of Medicine and Pharmacy23, Université de Montréal24, Guangzhou Medical University25, University of South Florida26, University of California, San Diego27, University of California28, University of Chicago29, Monash University30, Teikyo University31, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens32, Nippon Medical School33, Sofia Medical University34, Leiden University35, Leiden University Medical Center36, University College London37, University of Manitoba38, University of Helsinki39, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health40, National University of Singapore41, Karolinska Institutet42, University of Minnesota43, Celal Bayar University44, University of Cape Town45, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University46, Tunis University47, University of Ghana48, University of Wisconsin-Madison49, University of British Columbia50, Georgia Regents University51, Vilnius University52, University of Washington53, University of Dundee54, University of Poitiers55, University of Mississippi56, Federal University of São Paulo57, German Red Cross58, Jagiellonian University Medical College59, Chiba University60, American Pharmacists Association61, University of Aberdeen62, University of Nevada, Reno63, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill64
TL;DR: The ARIA guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma are similar in both the 1999 ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update as discussed by the authors, but the GRADE approach is not yet available.
Abstract: Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.
In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.
This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.
The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.
Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.
The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.
3,769 citations
TL;DR: This systematic review and meta-analyses confirmed the findings of a previous study published in “Rhinitis and Asthma: Causes and Prevention, 2nd Ed.” (2015) as well as new findings of “Mechanisms of Respiratory Disease and Allergology,” which confirmed the role of EMTs in the development of these diseases.
Abstract: Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
3,368 citations
University of Amsterdam1, Ghent University2, University of Chicago3, University of Pennsylvania4, Lund University5, Auckland City Hospital6, University of Antwerp7, University of New South Wales8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust10, Queen's University11, University of Zagreb12, Northwestern University13, Medical University of Łódź14, University of Aberdeen15, Medical University of South Carolina16, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill17, University of Southampton18, University of São Paulo19, National University of Singapore20, Flinders University21
TL;DR: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012 and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery.
Abstract: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
2,853 citations
TL;DR: Effective dose provides an approximate indicator of potential detriment from ionizing radiation and should be used as one parameter in evaluating the appropriateness of examinations involving ionizing Radiation.
Abstract: Medical uses of radiation have grown very rapidly over the past decade, and, as of 2007, medical uses represent the largest source of exposure to the U.S. population. Most physicians have difficulty assessing the magnitude of exposure or potential risk. Effective dose provides an approximate indicator of potential detriment from ionizing radiation and should be used as one parameter in evaluating the appropriateness of examinations involving ionizing radiation. The purpose of this review is to provide a compilation of effective doses for radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures. Standard radiographic examinations have average effective doses that vary by over a factor of 1000 (0.01-10 mSv). Computed tomographic examinations tend to be in a more narrow range but have relatively high average effective doses (approximately 2-20 mSv), and average effective doses for interventional procedures usually range from 5-70 mSv. Average effective dose for most nuclear medicine procedures varies between 0.3 and 20 mSv. These doses can be compared with the average annual effective dose from background radiation of about 3 mSv.
1,736 citations
University of Amsterdam1, Ghent University2, University of Chicago3, University of Pennsylvania4, Auckland City Hospital5, University of Antwerp6, University of New South Wales7, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven8, St Thomas' Hospital9, University of Nottingham10, University of Zagreb11, Northwestern University12, Medical University of Łódź13, University of Aberdeen14, Innsbruck Medical University15, Medical University of South Carolina16, University of Southampton17, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia18, University of São Paulo19, National University of Singapore20, University of Adelaide21, Flinders University22
TL;DR: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012 as discussed by the authors is the update of similar evidence-based position papers published in 2005 and 2007, it contains chapters on definitions and classification, we now also proposed definitions for difficult to treat rhinositis, control of disease, and better definitions for rhinosinitis in children.
Abstract: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2012 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007. The document contains chapters on definitions and classification, we now also proposed definitions for difficult to treat rhinosinusitis, control of disease and better definitions for rhinosinusitis in children. More emphasis is placed on the diagnosis and treatment of acute rhinosinusitis. Throughout the document the terms chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) are used to further point out differences in pathophysiology and treatment of these two entities. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. Last but not least all available evidence for management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is analyzed and presented and management schemes based on the evidence are proposed. This executive summary for otorhinolaryngologists focuses on the most important changes and issues for otorhinolaryngologists. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
1,608 citations