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.

E.A.O. guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical University of Warsaw

Diagnostics imaging is an essential component of patient selection and treatment planning in oral rehabilitation by means of osseointegrated implants. In 2002, the EAO produced and published guidelines on the use of diagnostic imaging in implant dentistry. Since that time, there have been significant developments in both the application of cone beam computed tomography as well as in the range of surgical and prosthetic applications that can potentially benefit from its use. However, medical exposure to ionizing radiation must always be justified and result in a net benefit to the patient. The as low a dose as is reasonably achievable principle must also be applied taking into account any alternative techniques that might achieve the same objectives. This paper reports on current EAO recommendations arising from a consensus meeting held at the Medical University of Warsaw (2011) to update these guidelines. Radiological considerations are detailed, including justification and optimization, with a special emphasis on the obligations that arise for those who prescribe or undertake such investigations. The paper pays special attention to clinical indications and radiographic diagnostic considerations as well as to future developments and trends.

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.

Evaluation of high-definition and conventional oscillometric blood pressure measurement in anaesthetised dogs using ACVIM guidelines

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate high-definition and conventional oscillometry in comparison with direct blood pressure measurements in anaesthetised dogs. METHODS: Eight simultaneous readings for systolic, diastolic and mean pressure were obtained directly and with each of two devices in nine anaesthetised dogs. Measurement procedure and validation were based on the 2007 ACVIM guidelines. RESULTS: Sixty-three simultaneous readings were evaluated for each device and direct measurements. The mean differences (bias) to direct values were within 10 mmHg for both devices although bias for systolic and diastolic blood pressures was higher for Memodiagnostic. The standard deviations of differences (precision) were within 15 mmHg for Dinamap but exceeded for Memodiagnostic. Correlation coefficients were higher for Dinamap than Memodiagnostic but both failed to reach a correlation of 0.9. Over 50% of values lay within 10 mmHg of direct measures for both devices, but this percentage was greater for Dinamap than Memodiagnostic. Over 80% of values lay within 20 mmHg of direct measures for Dinamap but not for Memodiagnostic. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both devices failed to meet ACVIM guideline validation. However, Dinamap only failed with regards to correlation. Memodiagnostic failed on several requirements, and based on poor correlation, accuracy and precision, this device cannot be currently recommended for dogs under anaesthesia.