ESCMID* guideline for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases 2012: developing European guidelines in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases.

The process to develop a guideline in a European setting remains a challenge. The ESCMID Fungal Infection Study Group (EFISG) successfully achieved this endeavour. After two face-to-face meetings, numerous telephone conferences, and email correspondence, an ESCMID task force (basically composed of members of the Society's Fungal Infection Study Group, EFISG) finalized the ESCMID diagnostic and management/therapeutic guideline for Candida diseases. By appreciating various patient populations at risk for Candida diseases, four subgroups were predefined, mainly ICU patients, paediatric, HIV/AIDS and patients with malignancies including haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Besides treatment recommendations, the ESCMID guidelines provide guidance for diagnostic procedures. For the guidelines, questions were formulated to phrase the intention of a given recommendation, for example, outcome. The recommendation was the clinical intervention, which was graded by a score of A-D for the 'Strength of a recommendation'. The 'level of evidence' received a score of I-III. The author panel was approved by ESCMID, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Confederation of Medical Mycology. The guidelines followed the framework of GRADE and Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation. The drafted guideline was presented at ECCMID 2011 and points of discussion occurring during that meeting were incorporated into the manuscripts. These ESCMID guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Candida diseases provide guidance for clinicians in their daily decision-making process.

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. METHODS: Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. RESULTS: The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

Are we building competitive and liveable cities?: Guidelines for developing eco-efficient and socially inclusive infrastructure

This guideline jointly published by The UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), in partnership with the Urban Design Lab of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, provides practical tools for city planners and decision makers to reform urban planning and infrastructure design according to the principles of eco-efficiency and social inclusiveness. It includes case studies from the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Japan and Sri Lanka.