Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Principaux résultats de l'étude suisse sur les DRG (étude Casemix). [Main results of the Swiss study on DRGs (Casemix Study)].

Sponsored by the Health Administrations of nine cantons, this study was conducted by the University Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine in Lausanne in order to assess how DRGs could be used within the Swiss context. A data base mainly provided by the Swiss VESKA statistics was used. The first step provided the transformation of Swiss diagnostic and intervention codes into US codes, allowing direct use of the Yale Grouper for DRG. The second step showed that the overall performance of DRG in terms of variability reduction of the length of stay was similar to the one observed in US; there are, however, problems when the homogeneity of medicotechnical procedures for DRG is considered. The third steps showed how DRG could be used as an account unit in hospital, and how costs per DRG could be estimated. Other examples of applications of DRG were examined, for example comparison of Casemix or length of stay between hospitals