Development of guidelines for microbiological control in microbrewery

Over the past 15 years the Italian brewing scene showed interesting changes, especially with regard to the creation of many breweries with an annual production of less than 10,000 hectoliters. The beers produced by microbreweries are very susceptible to attack by spoilage micro-organisms that cause the deterioration of beer quality characteristics. In addition, most of the microbreweries do not practice heat treatments of stabilization and do not carry out quality checks on the product. The high presence of beer spoilage bacteria is an economic problem for the brewing industry because it can damage the brand and it causes high costs of product retrieval. This thesis project was aimed to study the management of the production process in the Italian microbreweries within a production less than 10,000 hl. In particular, the annual production, type of plant, yeast management, process management, cleaning and sanitizing of a representative sample of microbreweries were investigated. Furthermore was made a collection of samples in order to identify, with simple methods, what are spoilage bacteria more present in the Italian craft beers. 21% of the beers analysed were positive at the presence of lactic acid bacteria. These analytical data show the importance of understanding what are the weak points of the production process that cause the development of spoilage bacteria. Finally, the thesis examined the actual production of two microbreweries in order to understand the process management that can promote the growth of spoilage bacteria in beer and production plant. The analysis of the data for the two case studies was helpful to understand what are the critical points where the microorganisms are most frequently in contact with the product. The hygiene practices are crucial to ensure the quality of the finished product, especially in the case of non-pasteurized beer.

Guidelines of Special Care Dentistry in Patients with Chromosomal and Genetic syndromes

Chromosomal and genetic syndromes are frequently associated with dental and cranio-facial alterations. The aim of our study is to identify and describe the dental and craniofacial alterations typical of six genetic and chromosomal syndromes examined. Materials and Methods- A dental visit was performed to 195 patients referred from Sant’Orsola Hospital of Bologna, University of Bologna, to Service of Special Need Dentistry, Dental Clinic, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, University of Bologna. The patients recruited were 137 females and 58 males, in an age range of 3-49 years (mean age of 13.8±7.4). The total sample consisted of subjects affected with Down Syndrome (n=133), Familiar Hypophosphatemic Ricket (n=10), Muscular Dystrophies (n=12), Noonan Syndrome (n=13), Turner Syndrome (n=17), Williams Syndrome(n=10). A questionnaire regarding detailed medical and dental history, oral health and dietary habits, was filled by parents/caregivers, or patients themselves when possible. The intra-oral and extra-oral examination valued the presence of facial asymmetries, oral habits, dental and skeletal malocclusions, dental formula, dental anomalies, Plaque Index (Silness&LÖe Index), caries prevalence (dmft/DMFT index), gingivitis and periodontal disease, and mucosal lesions. Radiographic examinations (Intraoral radiographies, Orthopanoramic, Skull teleradiography) were executed according to patient’s age and treatment planning. A review of literature about each syndrome and its dental and cranio-facial characteristics and about caries, hygiene status and malocclusion prevalence on syndromic and non-syndromic population was performed. Results - The data of all the patients were collected in the “Data Collection Tables” created for each syndrome. General anamnesis information, oral hygiene habits and dmft/DMFT, PI, malocclusion prevalence were calculated and compared to syndromic and non-syndromic population results found in literature. Discussions and conclusions - Guidelines of Special Care dentistry were indicated for each syndrome, in relation to each syndrome features and individual patient characteristics.

Prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of sepsis: 1st revision of S-2k guidelines of the German Sepsis Society (Deutsche Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG)) and the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI))

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements and recommendations that assist the physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care measures for specific clinical circumstances taking into account specific national health care structures. The 1(st) revision of the S-2k guideline of the German Sepsis Society in collaboration with 17 German medical scientific societies and one self-help group provides state-of-the-art information (results of controlled clinical trials and expert knowledge) on the effective and appropriate medical care (prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care) of critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The guideline had been developed according to the "German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal" of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). In view of the inevitable advancements in scientific knowledge and technical expertise, revisions, updates and amendments must be periodically initiated. The guideline recommendations may not be applied under all circumstances. It rests with the clinician to decide whether a certain recommendation should be adopted or not, taking into consideration the unique set of clinical facts presented in connection with each individual patient as well as the available resources.

2010 update of EORTC guidelines for the use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in adult patients with lymphoproliferative disorders and solid tumours

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a major risk factor for infection-related morbidity and mortality and also a significant dose-limiting toxicity in cancer treatment. Patients developing severe (grade 3/4) or febrile neutropenia (FN) during chemotherapy frequently receive dose reductions and/or delays to their chemotherapy. This may impact the success of treatment, particularly when treatment intent is either curative or to prolong survival. In Europe, prophylactic treatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs), such as filgrastim (including approved biosimilars), lenograstim or pegfilgrastim is available to reduce the risk of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. However, the use of G-CSF prophylactic treatment varies widely in clinical practice, both in the timing of therapy and in the patients to whom it is offered. The need for generally applicable, European-focused guidelines led to the formation of a European Guidelines Working Party by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and the publication in 2006 of guidelines for the use of G-CSF in adult cancer patients at risk of chemotherapy-induced FN. A new systematic literature review has been undertaken to ensure that recommendations are current and provide guidance on clinical practice in Europe. We recommend that patient-related adverse risk factors, such as elderly age (≥65 years) and neutrophil count be evaluated in the overall assessment of FN risk before administering each cycle of chemotherapy. It is important that after a previous episode of FN, patients receive prophylactic administration of G-CSF in subsequent cycles. We provide an expanded list of common chemotherapy regimens considered to have a high (≥20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN. Prophylactic G-CSF continues to be recommended in patients receiving a chemotherapy regimen with high risk of FN. When using a chemotherapy regimen associated with FN in 10-20% of patients, particular attention should be given to patient-related risk factors that may increase the overall risk of FN. In situations where dose-dense or dose-intense chemotherapy strategies have survival benefits, prophylactic G-CSF support is recommended. Similarly, if reductions in chemotherapy dose intensity or density are known to be associated with a poor prognosis, primary G-CSF prophylaxis may be used to maintain chemotherapy. Clinical evidence shows that filgrastim, lenograstim and pegfilgrastim have clinical efficacy and we recommend the use of any of these agents to prevent FN and FN-related complications where indicated. Filgrastim biosimilars are also approved for use in Europe. While other forms of G-CSF, including biosimilars, are administered by a course of daily injections, pegfilgrastim allows once-per-cycle administration. Choice of formulation remains a matter for individual clinical judgement. Evidence from multiple low level studies derived from audit data and clinical practice suggests that some patients receive suboptimal daily G-CSFs; the use of pegfilgrastim may avoid this problem.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.