| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Conroy, Elizabeth J, et al.
(författare)
-
A randomised controlled trial comparing palate surgery at 6months versus 12months of age (the TOPS trial): a statistical analysis plan.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Trials. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1745-6215. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cleft palate is among the most common birth abnormalities. The success of primary surgery in the early months of life is crucial for successful feeding, hearing, dental development, and facial growth. Over recent decades, age at palatal surgery in infancy has reduced. The Timing Of Primary Surgery for cleft palate (TOPS) trial aims to determine whether, in infants with cleft palate, it is better to perform primary surgery at age 6 or 12months (corrected for gestational age).The TOPS trial is an international, two-arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. The primary outcome is insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5years of age. Secondary outcomes, measured at 12months, 3years, and 5years of age, include measures ofspeech development, safety of the procedure, hearing level, middle ear function, dentofacial development, and growth. The analysis approaches for primary and secondary outcomes are described here, as are the descriptive statistics which will be reported. The TOPS protocol has been published previously.This paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the TOPS trial and will reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias and data-driven results.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00993551 . Registered on 9 October 2009.
|
|
| 4. |
- Harding, Andrew J. E., et al.
(författare)
-
What is important to people living with dementia?: the "long-list of outcome items in the development of a core outcome set for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and social care interventions
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMC Geriatrics. - : BMC. - 1471-2318. ; 19
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundCore outcome sets (COS) prioritise outcomes based on their importance to key stakeholders, reduce reporting bias and increase comparability across studies. The first phase of a COS study is to form a long-list of outcomes. Key stakeholders then decide on their importance. COS reporting is described as suboptimal and this first phase is often under-reported. Our objective was to develop a long-list of outcome items for non-pharmacological interventions for people with dementia living at home.MethodsThree iterative phases were conducted. First, people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policymakers and researchers (n=55) took part in interviews or focus groups and were asked which outcomes were important. Second, existing dementia trials were identified from the ALOIS database. 248 of 1009 pharmacological studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from a 50% random sample (n=124) along with eight key reviews/qualitative papers and 38 policy documents. Third, extracted outcome items were translated onto an existing qualitative framework and mapped into domains. The research team removed areas of duplication and refined the long-list in eight workshops.ResultsOne hundred seventy outcome items were extracted from the qualitative data and literature. The 170 outcome items were consolidated to 54 in four domains (Self-Managing Dementia Symptoms, Quality of Life, Friendly Neighbourhood amp; Home, Independence).ConclusionsThis paper presents a transparent blueprint for long-list development. Though a useful resource in their own right, the 54 outcome items will be distilled further in a modified Delphi survey and consensus meeting to identify core outcomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pirmohamed, Munir, et al.
(författare)
-
A Randomized Trial of Genotype-Guided Dosing of Warfarin
- 2013
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 369:24, s. 2294-2303
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The level of anticoagulation in response to a fixed-dose regimen of warfarin is difficult to predict during the initiation of therapy. We prospectively compared the effect of genotype-guided dosing with that of standard dosing on anticoagulation control in patients starting warfarin therapy.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. Genotyping for CYP2C9*2, CYP2C9*3, and VKORC1 (-1639GA) was performed with the use of a point-of-care test. For patients assigned to the genotype-guided group, warfarin doses were prescribed according to pharmacogenetic-based algorithms for the first 5 days. Patients in the control (standard dosing) group received a 3-day loading-dose regimen. After the initiation period, the treatment of all patients was managed according to routine clinical practice. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of time in the therapeutic range of 2.0 to 3.0 for the international normalized ratio (INR) during the first 12 weeks after warfarin initiation.Results: A total of 455 patients were recruited, with 227 randomly assigned to the genotype-guided group and 228 assigned to the control group. The mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 67.4% in the genotype-guided group as compared with 60.3% in the control group (adjusted difference, 7.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 3.3 to 10.6; P<0.001). There were significantly fewer incidences of excessive anticoagulation (INR 4.0) in the genotype-guided group. The median time to reach a therapeutic INR was 21 days in the genotype-guided group as compared with 29 days in the control group (P<0.001).Conclusions: Pharmacogenetic-based dosing was associated with a higher percentage of time in the therapeutic INR range than was standard dosing during the initiation of warfarin therapy.
|
|
| 6. |
- Terwee, Caroline B., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes : what and how to measure? A narrative review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Diabetologia. - : Springer. - 0012-186X .- 1432-0428. ; 66:8, s. 1357-1377
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.
|
|
