Search

Background: Empirical knowledge around palliative care provision and needs of people with intellectual disabilities is extremely limited, as is the availability of research resources, including expertise and funding. This paper describes a consultation process that sought to develop an agenda for research priorities for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe. Methods: A two-day workshop was convened, attended by 16 academics and clinicians in the field of palliative care and intellectual disability from six European countries. The first day consisted of round-table presentations and discussions about the current state of the art, research challenges and knowledge gaps. The second day was focused on developing consensus research priorities with 12 of the workshop participants using nominal group technique, a structured method which involved generating a list of research priorities and ranking them in order of importance. Results: A total of 40 research priorities were proposed and collapsed into eleven research themes. The four most important research themes were: investigating issues around end of life decision making; mapping the scale and scope of the issue; investigating the quality of palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities, including the challenges in achieving best practice; and developing outcome measures and instruments for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities. Conclusions: The proposal of four major priority areas and a range of minor themes for future research in intellectual disability, death, dying and palliative care will help researchers to focus limited resources and research expertise on areas where it is most needed and support the building of collaborations. The next steps are to cross-validate these research priorities with people with intellectual disabilities, carers, clinicians, researchers and other stakeholders across Europe; to validate them with local and national policy makers to determine how they could best be incorporated in policy and programmes; and to translate them into actual research studies by setting up European collaborations for specific studies that require such collaboration, develop research proposals and attract research funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Given the complexity and heterogeneity of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), high-performing classification criteria are critical to advancing research and clinical care. A collaborative effort by the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology was undertaken to generate candidate criteria, and then to reduce them to a smaller set. The objective of the current study was to select a set of criteria that maximizes the likelihood of accurate classification of SLE, particularly early disease., Methods: An independent panel of international SLE experts and the SLE classification criteria steering committee (conducting SLE research in Canada, Mexico, United States, Austria, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, and Spain) ranked 43 candidate criteria. A consensus meeting using nominal group technique (NGT) was conducted to reduce the list of criteria for consideration., Results: The expert panel NGT exercise reduced the candidate criteria for SLE classification from 43 to 21. The panel distinguished potential "entry criteria," which would be required for classification, from potential "additive criteria." Potential entry criteria were antinuclear antibody (ANA) ≥ 1:80 (HEp-2 immunofluorescence), and low C3 and/or low C4. The use of low complement as an entry criterion was considered potentially useful in cases with negative ANA. Potential additive criteria included lupus nephritis by renal biopsy, autoantibodies, cytopenias, acute and chronic cutaneous lupus, alopecia, arthritis, serositis, oral mucosal lesions, central nervous system manifestations, and fever., Conclusion: The NGT exercise resulted in 21 candidate SLE classification criteria. The next phases of SLE classification criteria development will require refinement of criteria definitions, evaluation of the ability to cluster criteria into domains, and evaluation of weighting of criteria.

Background and Aim: The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) aims to further develop its role in international medical and scientific guidance in the field of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, where many types of guidance documents exist. The ESCMID Executive Committee and the Clinical Microbiology and Infection (CMI) editorial board wish to clarify the terminology and format to be used in ESCMID guidance documents submitted for publication in CMI, and to highlight the principles behind ESCMID guidance documents., Types of Guidance Documents: There are five types of ESCMID guidance documents: White Papers, Clinical Practice Guidelines, Consensus Statements, State-of-the-Science Statements, and Position Papers. They differ in scope, methods of development, drafting group composition and preferred publication format. Guidance documents can be proposed, developed and published by ESCMID Study Groups, Committees and individual members; often, other scientific societies are involved. The full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest of all drafting group members is a requirement., Final Remarks: Guidance documents constitute a common cultural and scientific background to people in the same and related professions. Also, they are an important educational and training tool. Developing a guidance document is a scientific endeavour, where a sound and transparent development process is needed, requiring multidisciplinary and personal skills., (Copyright © 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)