Diagnostic accuracy of fecal calprotectin assay in distinguishing organic causes of chronic diarrhea from irritable bowel syndrome: a prospective study in adults and children

Fecal calprotectin (FC) has been proposed as a marker of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but few studies have evaluated its usefulness in patients with chronic diarrhea of various causes. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a FC assay in identifying "organic" causes of chronic diarrhea in consecutive adults and children

Linee guida per la diagnosi, il trattamento e il supporto dei pazienti affetti da demenza

Il termine demenza descrive una serie di sintomi cognitivi, comportamentali e psicologici che possono includere perdita di memoria, difficoltà di ragionamento e di comunicazione e cambiamenti della personalità che compromettono la capacità di svolgere le attività quotidiane. Nel 2013 un rapporto della Alzheimer’s Society ha rilevato che nel Regno Unito erano circa 815.000 le persone affette da demenza (prevalenza 1/14 abitanti di età >65 anni), un numero destinato ad aumentare sino a 1.143.000 entro il 2025. Nel novembre 2017 erano 456.739 i pazienti con una diagnosi certa di demenza nei registri di medicina generale, rispetto ai 290.000 del periodo 2009-2010, la differenza in gran parte imputabile ad un aumento del numero di diagnosi. Nonostante questo miglioramento nella diagnosi della demenza, si stima che circa 1 caso su 3 non venga riconosciuto correttamente; inoltre, circa la metà delle persone affette da demenza non riceve un adeguato supporto dopo la diagnosi. Questo articolo riassume le raccomandazioni più recenti del National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) per la valutazione, la gestione e il supporto delle persone affette da demenza e dei loro caregiver. La linea guida (LG) aggiorna e sostituisce integralmente la LG NICE sulla demenza del 2006. Raccomandazioni, dettagli completi delle evidenze e il PDTA sono disponibili sul sito del NICE. Le raccomandazioni del NICE sono basate su revisioni sistematiche delle migliori evidenze disponibili e su una esplicita considerazione della costo-efficacia. Quando le evidenze disponibili sono limitate, le raccomandazioni sono basate sull’esperienza del gruppo che ha prodotto la linea guida – Guideline Development Group’s (GDG) – e sulle norme di buona pratica clinica. I livelli di evidenza delle raccomandazioni cliniche sono indicati in corsivo tra parentesi quadre

Wrong guidelines : why and how often they occur

Evidence-based guidelines are considered an essential tool in assisting physicians, policymakers and patients when choosing among alternative care options and are considered unbiased standards of care. Unfortunately, depending on how their reliability is measured, up to 50% of guidelines can be considered untrustworthy. This carries serious consequences for patients' safety, resource use and health economics burden. Although conflict of interests, panel composition and methodological flaws are traditionally thought to be the main reasons undermining their untrustworthiness, corruption and waste of biomedical research also contribute. We discuss these issues in the hope for a wider awareness of the limits of guidelines

Wrong guidelines : how to detect them and what to do in the case of flawed recommendations

Any evidence-based recommendation needs careful assessment of its methodological background as well as of its content trustworthiness, especially given that following it will not necessarily produce the intended clinical outcomes. There are no established instruments to evaluate guidelines for their content, while useful tools assessing the quality of methods followed are well recognised and adopted. We suggest a 'safety bundle' considering methodological aspects and content trustworthiness of guidelines, by adopting the GRADE method in a backward fashion. Sharing the critical analysis of the guidelines with patients, including any eventual uncertainty about them, is of key importance in order to avoid the possible adverse effects derived from following the wrong guidelines. Such critical approach is also helpful and beneficial in producing better care pathways, health policy decisions and more relevant and ethical research

Declaration of use and appropriate use of reporting guidelines in high-impact rehabilitation journals is limited: a meta-research study

Objectives: The main aims of this metaresearch study conducted among high-impact rehabilitation journals were: 1) to evaluate if the use of reporting guidelines (RGs) was declared and 2) to categorize the declared use as appropriate or inappropriate. Study Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 200 studies published in the period 2010\u20132019 in five generic rehabilitation journals with the highest 5-year impact factor. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, and diagnostic studies were included. Prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated for the main outcomes. Results: Among the 200 selected studies, 17.5% (95% CI: 12.2\u201322.8%) declared using RGs. Among these studies, 48.6% (95% CI: 32\u201365.1%) declared an appropriate use. There was an increasing trend over time for authors to report the use of RGs (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13\u20131.53). Systematic reviews (n = 54) reported more frequently the use of RGs than other study designs (35.2%). Conclusion: In high-impact rehabilitation journals, a small minority of article authors declared the use of RGs. In approximately half of these studies, RGs were used inappropriately. There is an urgent need to improve the use of RGs in this field of research