National Institutes Of Health Consensus Development Project On Criteria For Clinical Trials In Chronic Graft-versus-host Disease: I. The 2014 Diagnosis And Staging Working Group Report.

The 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference proposed new criteria for diagnosing and scoring the severity of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The 2014 NIH consensus maintains the framework of the prior consensus with further refinement based on new evidence. Revisions have been made to address areas of controversy or confusion, such as the overlap chronic GVHD subcategory and the distinction between active disease and past tissue damage. Diagnostic criteria for involvement of mouth, eyes, genitalia, and lungs have been revised. Categories of chronic GVHD should be defined in ways that indicate prognosis, guide treatment, and define eligibility for clinical trials. Revisions have been made to focus attention on the causes of organ-specific abnormalities. Attribution of organ-specific abnormalities to chronic GVHD has been addressed. This paradigm shift provides greater specificity and more accurately measures the global burden of disease attributed to GVHD, and it will facilitate biomarker association studies.

O aluno portador de visão subnormal na escola regular: desafio para o professor?

Purpose:1) To check self-knowledge and needs for orientation among regular class teachers working with low vision students; 2) To gather information to assist the training on visual deficiency of regular class teachers. Methods: A survey was conducted for the academic year of 1999 among those teachers working in public schools, Campinas/SP/Brazil, of which 11 were municipal and 9 state schools, respectively 79.0% and 90.0% of these schools. A self-administered questionnaire was used as data collection instrument. Results: The sample was composed of 50 teachers with a regular class experience averaging 20 years. Most of them, 94.0%, said that they had no specific preparation in the area of low vision. Only 18 teachers declared to have received some kind of information/orientation in order to work with their low vision students and of those only 15 teachers mentioned the kind of orientation received. The whole group of 50 declared interest in receiving information. From the information/orientation requested 66.0% mentioned extended working class materials, 50.0% visual performance and eye disease of their students and 46.0% visual acuity/visual field. Conclusion: It was detected that teachers of regular classes received none or little information about their low vision students but demonstrated interest in its obtention. It was also shown that those teachers are not prepared to work with visually impaired children.