Protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline for the care of patients with chronic subdural haematoma

Introduction: A common neurosurgical condition, chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) typically affects older people with other underlying health conditions. The care of this potentially vulnerable cohort is often, however, fragmented and suboptimal. In other complex conditions, multidisciplinary guidelines have transformed patient experience and outcomes, but no such framework exists for cSDH. This paper outlines a protocol to develop the first comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline from diagnosis to long-term recovery with cSDH. Methods: The project will be guided by a steering group of key stakeholders and professional organisations and will feature patient and public involvement. Multidisciplinary thematic working groups will examine key aspects of care to formulate appropriate, patient-centered research questions, targeted with evidence review using the GRADE framework. The working groups will then formulate draft clinical recommendations to be used in a modified Delphi process to build consensus on guideline contents. Conclusions: We present a protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary guideline to inform the care of patients with a cSDH, developed by cross-disciplinary working groups and arrived at through a consensus-building process, including a modified online Delphi.</p

Protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline for the care of patients with chronic subdural haematoma.

Introduction: A common neurosurgical condition, chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) typically affects older people with other underlying health conditions. The care of this potentially vulnerable cohort is often, however, fragmented and suboptimal. In other complex conditions, multidisciplinary guidelines have transformed patient experience and outcomes, but no such framework exists for cSDH. This paper outlines a protocol to develop the first comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline from diagnosis to long-term recovery with cSDH. Methods: The project will be guided by a steering group of key stakeholders and professional organisations and will feature patient and public involvement. Multidisciplinary thematic working groups will examine key aspects of care to formulate appropriate, patient-centered research questions, targeted with evidence review using the GRADE framework. The working groups will then formulate draft clinical recommendations to be used in a modified Delphi process to build consensus on guideline contents. Conclusions: We present a protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary guideline to inform the care of patients with a cSDH, developed by cross-disciplinary working groups and arrived at through a consensus-building process, including a modified online Delphi

Protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline for the care of patients with chronic subdural haematoma [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

Introduction: A common neurosurgical condition, chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) typically affects older people with other underlying health conditions. The care of this potentially vulnerable cohort is often, however, fragmented and suboptimal. In other complex conditions, multidisciplinary guidelines have transformed patient experience and outcomes, but no such framework exists for cSDH. This paper outlines a protocol to develop the first comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline from diagnosis to long-term recovery with cSDH.  Methods: The project will be guided by a steering group of key stakeholders and professional organisations and will feature patient and public involvement.  Multidisciplinary thematic working groups will examine key aspects of care to formulate appropriate, patient-centered research questions, targeted with evidence review using the GRADE framework.  The working groups will then formulate draft clinical recommendations to be used in a modified Delphi process to build consensus on guideline contents.  Conclusions: We present a protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary guideline to inform the care of patients with a cSDH, developed by cross-disciplinary working groups and arrived at through a consensus-building process, including a modified online Delphi

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field