| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gornall, B. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40:a quantitative systematic review
- 2013
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Anaesthesia. - : Elsevier BV. - 0007-0912 .- 1471-6771. ; 111:2, s. 161-169
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background.Several rating scales have been developed to measure quality of recovery aftersurgery and anaesthesia, but the most extensively used is the QoR-40, a 40-itemquestionnaire that provides a global score and subscores across five dimensions: patientsupport, comfort, emotions, physical independence, and pain. It has been evaluated in avariety of settings, but its overall psychometric properties (validity, reliability, ease of use,and interpretation) and clinical utility are uncertain.Methods.We undertook a quantitative systematic review of studies evaluatingpsychometric properties of the QoR-40. Data were combined in meta-analyses usingrandom effects models. This resulted in a total sample of 3459 patients from 17 studiesoriginating in nine countries.Results.We confirmed content, construct, and convergent [pooled r¼0.58, 95% confidenceinterval (CI): 0.51–0.65] validity. Reliability was confirmed by excellent intraclass correlation(pooleda¼0.91, 95% CI: 0.88–0.93), test–retest reliability (pooled r¼0.90, 95% CI: 0.86–0.92), and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation¼0.86). The clinical utility of theQoR-40 instrument was supported by high patient recruitment into evaluation studies(97%), and an excellent completion and return rate (97%). The mean time to completethe QoR-40 was 5.1 (95% CI: 4.4–5.7) min.Conclusions.The QoR-40 is a widely used and extensively validated measure of quality ofrecovery. The QoR-40 is a suitable measure of postoperative quality of recovery in arange of clinical and research situations.Keywords:health status; meta-analysis; outcomes
|
|
