Search

The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents’ perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5–7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3–6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2–5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4–7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5–6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.

Objective To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days. Methods Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended. Results No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.

ObjectiveTo develop recommendations for disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS).MethodsA multidisciplinary panel developed DMT recommendations, integrating findings from a systematic review; followed an Institute of Medicine–compliant process to ensure transparency and patient engagement; and developed modified Delphi consensus–based recommendations concerning starting, switching, and stopping DMTs pertinent to people with relapsing-remitting MS, secondary progressive MS, primary progressive MS, and clinically isolated syndromes of demyelination. Recommendations were supported by structured rationales, integrating evidence from one or more sources: systematic review, related evidence (evidence not from the systematic review), principles of care, and inference from evidence.ResultsThirty recommendations were developed: 17 on starting DMTs, including recommendations on who should start them; 10 on switching DMTs if breakthrough disease develops; and 3 on stopping DMTs. Recommendations encompassed patient engagement strategies and individualization of treatment, including adherence monitoring and disease comorbidity assessment. The panel also discussed DMT risks, including counseling about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy risk in people with MS using natalizumab, fingolimod, rituximab, ocrelizumab, and dimethyl fumarate; and made suggestions for future research to evaluate relative merits of early treatment with higher potency DMTs vs standard stepped-care protocols, DMT comparative effectiveness, optimal switching strategies, long-term effects of DMT use, definitions of highly active MS, and effects of treatment on patient-specified priority outcomes. This guideline reflects the complexity of decision-making for starting, switching, or stopping MS DMTs. The field of MS treatment is rapidly changing; the Academy of Neurology development process includes planning for future updates.

ObjectiveTo update the 2001 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline on mild cognitive impairment (MCI).MethodsThe guideline panel systematically reviewed MCI prevalence, prognosis, and treatment articles according to AAN evidence classification criteria, and based recommendations on evidence and modified Delphi consensus.ResultsMCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60–64, 8.4% for 65–69, 10.1% for 70–74, 14.8% for 75–79, and 25.2% for 80–84. Cumulative dementia incidence was 14.9% in individuals with MCI older than age 65 years followed for 2 years. No high-quality evidence exists to support pharmacologic treatments for MCI. In patients with MCI, exercise training (6 months) is likely to improve cognitive measures and cognitive training may improve cognitive measures.Major recommendationsClinicians should assess for MCI with validated tools in appropriate scenarios (Level B). Clinicians should evaluate patients with MCI for modifiable risk factors, assess for functional impairment, and assess for and treat behavioral/neuropsychiatric symptoms (Level B). Clinicians should monitor cognitive status of patients with MCI over time (Level B). Cognitively impairing medications should be discontinued where possible and behavioral symptoms treated (Level B). Clinicians may choose not to offer cholinesterase inhibitors (Level B); if offering, they must first discuss lack of evidence (Level A). Clinicians should recommend regular exercise (Level B). Clinicians may recommend cognitive training (Level C). Clinicians should discuss diagnosis, prognosis, long-term planning, and the lack of effective medicine options (Level B), and may discuss biomarker research with patients with MCI and families (Level C).

Introduction The high failure rate of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be attributable, in part, to the use of untested or insensitive measurement instruments. Of more than 1,000 clinical outcome assessment measures (COAs) for TBI, few have been systematically vetted to determine their performance within specific “contexts of use (COU).” As described in guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the COU specifies the population of interest and the purpose for which the COA will be employed. COAs are commonly used for screening, diagnostic categorization, outcome prediction, and establishing treatment effectiveness. COA selection typically relies on expert consensus; there is no established methodology to match the appropriateness of a particular COA to a specific COU. We developed and pilot-tested the Evidence-Based Clinical Outcome assessment Platform (EB-COP) to systematically and transparently evaluate the suitability of TBI COAs for specific purposes. Methods and findings Following a review of existing literature and published guidelines on psychometric standards for COAs, we developed a 6-step, semi-automated, evidence-based assessment platform to grade COA performance for six specific purposes: diagnosis, symptom detection, prognosis, natural history, subgroup stratification and treatment effectiveness. Mandatory quality indicators (QIs) were identified for each purpose using a modified Delphi consensus-building process. The EB-COP framework was incorporated into a Qualtrics software platform and pilot-tested on the Glasgow Outcome Scale—Extended (GOSE), the most widely-used COA in TBI clinical studies. Conclusion The EB-COP provides a systematic methodology for conducting more precise, evidence-based assessment of COAs by evaluating performance within specific COUs. The EB-COP platform was shown to be feasible when applied to a TBI COA frequently used to detect treatment effects and can be modified to address other populations and COUs. Additional testing and validation of the EB-COP are warranted.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Background: Uncompensated vestibular hypofunction results in postural instability, visual blurring with head movement, and subjective complaints of dizziness and/or imbalance. We sought to answer the question, “Is vestibular exercise effective at enhancing recovery of function in people with peripheral (unilateral or bilateral) vestibular hypofunction?” Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed in 5 databases published after 1985 and 5 additional sources for relevant publications were searched. Article types included meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case control series, and case series for human subjects, published in English. One hundred thirty-five articles were identified as relevant to this clinical practice guideline. Results/Discussion: Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of benefit over harm, clinicians should offer vestibular rehabilitation to persons with unilateral and bilateral vestibular hypofunction with impairments and functional limitations related to the vestibular deficit. Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of harm over benefit, clinicians should not include voluntary saccadic or smooth-pursuit eye movements in isolation (ie, without head movement) as specific exercises for gaze stability. Based on moderate evidence, clinicians may offer specific exercise techniques to target identified impairments or functional limitations. Based on moderate evidence and in consideration of patient preference, clinicians may provide supervised vestibular rehabilitation. Based on expert opinion extrapolated from the evidence, clinicians may prescribe a minimum of 3 times per day for the performance of gaze stability exercises as 1 component of a home exercise program. Based on expert opinion extrapolated from the evidence (range of supervised visits: 2-38 weeks, mean = 10 weeks), clinicians may consider providing adequate supervised vestibular rehabilitation sessions for the patient to understand the goals of the program and how to manage and progress themselves independently. As a general guide, persons without significant comorbidities that affect mobility and with acute or subacute unilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week supervised sessions for 2 to 3 weeks; persons with chronic unilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week sessions for 4 to 6 weeks; and persons with bilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week sessions for 8 to 12 weeks. In addition to supervised sessions, patients are provided a daily home exercise program. Disclaimer: These recommendations are intended as a guide for physical therapists and clinicians to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for persons with peripheral vestibular hypofunction undergoing vestibular rehabilitation. Video Abstract available for more insights from the author (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A124).

ObjectiveTo update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition on minimally conscious state (MCS) and provide care recommendations for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (DoC).MethodsRecommendations were based on systematic review evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences using a modified Delphi consensus process according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.RecommendationsClinicians should identify and treat confounding conditions, optimize arousal, and perform serial standardized assessments to improve diagnostic accuracy in adults and children with prolonged DoC (Level B). Clinicians should counsel families that for adults, MCS (vs vegetative state [VS]/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome [UWS]) and traumatic (vs nontraumatic) etiology are associated with more favorable outcomes (Level B). When prognosis is poor, long-term care must be discussed (Level A), acknowledging that prognosis is not universally poor (Level B). Structural MRI, SPECT, and the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised can assist prognostication in adults (Level B); no tests are shown to improve prognostic accuracy in children. Pain always should be assessed and treated (Level B) and evidence supporting treatment approaches discussed (Level B). Clinicians should prescribe amantadine (100–200 mg bid) for adults with traumatic VS/UWS or MCS (4–16 weeks post injury) to hasten functional recovery and reduce disability early in recovery (Level B). Family counseling concerning children should acknowledge that natural history of recovery, prognosis, and treatment are not established (Level B). Recent evidence indicates that the term chronic VS/UWS should replace permanent VS, with duration specified (Level B). Additional recommendations are included.

ObjectiveTo update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days.MethodsArticles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.ResultsNo diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.

Objective: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation treatments in multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We systematically searched the literature (1970–2013) and classified articles using 2004 American Academy of Neurology criteria. Results: This systematic review highlights the paucity of well-designed studies, which are needed to evaluate the available MS rehabilitative therapies. Weekly home/outpatient physical therapy (8 weeks) probably is effective for improving balance, disability, and gait (MS type unspecified, participants able to walk ≥5 meters) but probably is ineffective for improving upper extremity dexterity (1 Class I). Inpatient exercises (3 weeks) followed by home exercises (15 weeks) possibly are effective for improving disability (relapsing-remitting MS [RRMS], primary progressive MS [PPMS], secondary progressive MS [SPMS], Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 3.0–6.5) (1 Class II). Six weeks9 worth of comprehensive multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation possibly is effective for improving disability/function (PPMS, SPMS, EDSS 4.0–8.0) (1 Class II). Motor and sensory balance training or motor balance training (3 weeks) possibly is effective for improving static and dynamic balance, and motor balance training (3 weeks) possibly is effective for improving static balance (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS) (1 Class II). Breathing-enhanced upper extremity exercises (6 weeks) possibly are effective for improving timed gait and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, mean EDSS 4.5); this change is of unclear clinical significance. This technique possibly is ineffective for improving disability (1 Class II). Inspiratory muscle training (10 weeks) possibly improves maximal inspiratory pressure (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, EDSS 2–6.5) (1 Class II).

Summary There are many factors driving health care reform, including unsustainable costs, poor outcomes, an aging populace, and physician shortages. These issues are particularly relevant to neurology. New reimbursement models are based on value and facilitated by the use of multidisciplinary teams. Integration of advanced practice providers (APPs) into neurology practice offers many advantages with new models of care. Conversely, there are many and varied challenges financially and logistically with these practice models. The American Academy of Neurology has formed a Work Group to address the needs of both neurologists and neurologic APPs and monitor the effect of APPs on quality and cost of neurologic care.

ObjectiveTo review evidence on starting, switching, and stopping disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) in clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), and progressive MS forms.MethodsRelevant, peer-reviewed research articles, systematic reviews, and abstracts were identified (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE searched from inception to November 2016). Studies were rated using the therapeutic classification scheme. Prior published Cochrane reviews were also used.ResultsTwenty Cochrane reviews and an additional 73 full-text articles were selected for data extraction through an updated systematic review (completed November 2016). For people with RRMS, many DMTs are superior to placebo (annualized relapses rates [ARRs], new disease activity [new MRI T2 lesion burden], and in-study disease progression) (see summary and full text publications). For people with RRMS who experienced a relapse on interferon-β (IFN-β) or glatiramer acetate, alemtuzumab is more effective than IFN-β-1a 44 μg subcutaneous 3 times per week in reducing the ARR. For people with primary progressive MS, ocrelizumab is probably more effective than placebo (in-study disease progression). DMTs for MS have varying adverse effects. In people with CIS, glatiramer acetate and IFN-β-1a subcutaneous 3 times per week are more effective than placebo in decreasing risk of conversion to MS. Cladribine, immunoglobulins, IFN-β-1a 30 μg intramuscular weekly, IFN-β-1b subcutaneous alternate day, and teriflunomide are probably more effective than placebo in decreasing risk of conversion to MS. Suggestions for future research include studies considering comparative effectiveness, usefulness of high-efficacy treatment vs stepped-care protocols, and research into predictive biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE: Although unnecessary for children with headache and normal history, computed tomography (CT) scans are widely used. This study sought to determine current practice patterns of neuroimaging to diagnose pediatric headache in a variety of treatment settings and to identify factors associated with increased use of neuroimaging. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis included children (aged 3–17 years) with ≥2 medical claims for headache. The primary outcome was CT scan utilization on or after first presentation with headache in a physician’s office or emergency department (ED). RESULTS: Of 15 836 patients, 26% (4034 patients; mean age: 11.8 years) had ≥1 CT scan, 74% within 1 month of index diagnosis. Patients with ED visits were 4 times more likely to undergo a CT scan versus those without ED visits (P < .001 [95% confidence interval: 3.9–4.8]). However, even outside the ED, use of CT scans remained widespread. Two-thirds of patients with CT scans had no ED use. Among patients with no ED utilization, >20% received a CT scan during the study period. Evaluation by a neurologist was strongly associated with a lower likelihood of CT scan compared with other provider specialties (odds ratio: 0.37; P < .01 [95% confidence interval: 0.30–0.46]). CONCLUSIONS: Use of CT scans to diagnose pediatric headache remains high despite existing guidelines, low diagnostic yield, and high potential risk. Implementing quality improvement initiatives to ensure that CT scans in children are performed only when truly indicated will reduce unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation and associated cancer risks.

Objective: To discuss the American Academy of Neurology (AAN)9s Top Five Recommendations in the Choosing Wisely campaign promoting high-value neurologic medicine and physician–patient communication. The AAN published its Top Five Recommendations in February 2013 in collaboration with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and Consumer Reports . Methods: A Choosing Wisely Working Group of 10 AAN members was formed to oversee the process and craft the evidence-based recommendations. AAN members were solicited for recommendations, the recommendations were sent out for external review, and the Working Group members (article authors) used a modified Delphi process to select their Top Five Recommendations. Results and recommendations: The Working Group submitted 5 neurologic recommendations to the AAN Practice Committee and Board of Directors; all 5 were approved by both entities in September 2012. Recommendation 1: Don9t perform EEGs for headaches. Recommendation 2: Don9t perform imaging of the carotid arteries for simple syncope without other neurologic symptoms. Recommendation 3: Don9t use opioids or butalbital for treatment of migraine, except as a last resort. Recommendation 4: Don9t prescribe interferon-β or glatiramer acetate to patients with disability from progressive, nonrelapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Recommendation 5: Don9t recommend carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis unless the complication rate is low (

Objective: To review current approaches for obtaining patient data in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and consider how monitoring and comparing outcome measures across DMD clinics could facilitate standardized and improved patient care. Methods: We reviewed annual standardized data from cystic fibrosis (CF) clinics and DMD care guidelines and consensus statements; compared current approaches to obtain DMD patient data and outcome measures; and considered the best method for implementing public reporting of outcomes, to drive improvements in health care delivery. Results: Current methods to monitor DMD patient information (MD STARnet, DuchenneConnect, and TREAT-NMD) do not yet provide patients with comparative outcome data. The CF patient registry allows for reporting of standard outcomes across clinics and is associated with improved CF outcomes. A similar patient registry is under development for the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) clinic network. Suggested metrics for quality care include molecular diagnosis, ambulatory status and age at loss of ambulation, age requiring ventilator support, and survival. Conclusions: CF longevity has increased by almost 33% from 1986 to 2010, in part due to a CF patient registry that has been stratified by individual care centers since 1999, and publically available since 2006. Implementation of outcome reporting for MDA clinics might promote a similar benefit to patients with DMD.

Background Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development. Methods Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test. Results The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p

Bell's palsy, named after the Scottish anatomist, Sir Charles Bell, is the most common acute mononeuropathy, or disorder affecting a single nerve, and is the most common diagnosis associated with facial nerve weakness/paralysis. In the past 2 years, both the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) have published clinical practice guidelines aimed to improve the quality of care and outcomes for patients diagnosed with Bell's palsy. This commentary aims to address the similarities and differences in the scope and final recommendations made by each guideline development group.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) shape clinical care worldwide but are prone to potential error and bias due to conflicts of interest (COI).To explore the extent and scope of American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline author reported COI and implications for management; and to review process of AAN guideline COI management to highlight challenges, establish comparative benchmarks, and identify areas to be improved.Authors of AAN clinical practice guidelines with an active membership panel completed a COI reporting form. Authors were asked to report current interests including the 1 year prior to the date of completing the form. Interests include personal income relationships (consulting, speaker's bureaus, advisory boards), equity (stocks/stock options), patent/royalties, research, clinical practice, fiduciary interest in a company, and expert testimony. Comparisons were made between the two committees that oversee CPG development at the AAN: the Quality Standards Subcommittee (QSS) and the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment (TTA) Subcommittee.There were 50 CPG with an average of 8.5 authors per CPG. There were a total of 425 available authors, 351 of whom completed a COI reporting form (83% response rate). Forty-six of the 50 guidelines had at least one author with a COI. The most commonly reported COIs were research-related (45% of authors), clinical practice-related (42%), and personal income relationships (33%). Authors of QSS guidelines were more likely to have personal income COIs with pharmaceutical and medical device companies (39% vs 24%, p0.01), whereas authors of TTA guidelines were more likely to have clinical practice-related COIs (50% vs 38%, p0.05). A minority of authors had individual COIs exceeding$25,000 or had multiple interests (10) that overlapped with content of the guidelines.Conflicts of interest are common for authors of American Academy of Neurology clinical practice guidelines across many domains of personal and professional interests. More research is needed to improve the methods to identify and quantify the types of conflicts and their potential biasing effects on selecting guideline topics, grading research evidence, and formulating practice recommendations.

Objective: To delineate optimal diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to congenital muscular dystrophy (CMD) through a systematic review and analysis of the currently available literature. Methods: Relevant, peer-reviewed research articles were identified using a literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. Diagnostic and therapeutic data from these articles were extracted and analyzed in accordance with the American Academy of Neurology classification of evidence schemes for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic studies. Recommendations were linked to the strength of the evidence, other related literature, and general principles of care. Results: The geographic and ethnic backgrounds, clinical features, brain imaging studies, muscle imaging studies, and muscle biopsies of children with suspected CMD help predict subtype-specific diagnoses. Genetic testing can confirm some subtype-specific diagnoses, but not all causative genes for CMD have been described. Seizures and respiratory complications occur in specific subtypes. There is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of various treatment interventions to optimize respiratory, orthopedic, and nutritional outcomes, and more data are needed regarding complications. Recommendations: Multidisciplinary care by experienced teams is important for diagnosing and promoting the health of children with CMD. Accurate assessment of clinical presentations and genetic data will help in identifying the correct subtype-specific diagnosis in many cases. Multiorgan system complications occur frequently; surveillance and prompt interventions are likely to be beneficial for affected children. More research is needed to fill gaps in knowledge regarding this category of muscular dystrophies.

Background: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that provide recommendations to optimize patient care for a specific clinical problem or question. Merely reading a guideline rarely leads to implementation of recommendations. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has a formal process of guideline development and dissemination. The last few years have seen a burgeoning of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and newer methods of dissemination such as podcasts and webinars. The role of these media in guideline dissemination has not been studied. Systematic evaluation of dissemination methods and comparison of the effectiveness of newer methods with traditional methods is not available. It is also not known whether specific dissemination methods may be more effectively targeted to specific audiences. Objective: Our aim was to (1) develop an innovative dissemination strategy by adding social media-based dissemination methods to traditional methods for the AAN clinical practice guidelines “Complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis” (“CAM in MS”) and (2) evaluate whether the addition of social media outreach improves awareness of the CPG and knowledge of CPG recommendations, and affects implementation of those recommendations. Methods: Outcomes were measured by four surveys in each of the two target populations: patients and physicians/clinicians (“physicians”). The primary outcome was the difference in participants’ intent to discuss use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with their physicians or patients, respectively, after novel dissemination, as compared with that after traditional dissemination. Secondary outcomes were changes in awareness of the CPG, knowledge of CPG content, and behavior regarding CAM use in multiple sclerosis (MS). Results: Response rates were 25.08% (622/2480) for physicians and 43.5% (348/800) for patients. Awareness of the CPG increased after traditional dissemination (absolute difference, 95% confidence interval: physicians 36%, 95% CI 25-46, and patients 10%, 95% CI 1-11) but did not increase further after novel dissemination (physicians 0%, 95% CI -11 to 11, and patients -4%, 95% CI -6 to 14). Intent to discuss CAM also increased after traditional dissemination but did not change after novel dissemination (traditional: physicians 12%, 95% CI 2-22, and patients 19%, 95% CI 3-33; novel: physicians 11%, 95% CI -1 to -21, and patients -8%, 95% CI -22 to 8). Knowledge of CPG recommendations and behavior regarding CAM use in MS did not change after either traditional dissemination or novel dissemination. Conclusions: Social media-based dissemination methods did not confer additional benefit over print-, email-, and Internet-based methods in increasing CPG awareness and changing intent in physicians or patients. Research on audience selection, message formatting, and message delivery is required to utilize Web 2.0 technologies optimally for dissemination. [J Med Internet Res 2015;17(8):e193]

Purpose: To determine the pervasiveness of opioid prescribing for adolescents with headache and patient and provider characteristics associated with likelihood of opioid prescribing. Methods: This observational cohort analysis used commercial medical and pharmacy claims between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008. Included were adolescents (13e17 years of age) with newly diagnosed headache, � 2 distinct claims for headache, and � 12 months health plan eligibility preindex and postindex. Adolescents with a trauma diagnosis at any point were excluded. The primary outcome was current practice patterns, measured by a number of opioid claims, a percentage of patients prescribed opioids, a number of opioid prescriptions per year, a length of opioid therapy, and a frequency of specific comorbidities. A secondary outcome characterized providers and practice settings, comparing patients who received opioids with those who did not. Results and conclusions: Of 8,373 adolescents with headache, 46% (3,859 patients) received an opioid prescription. Nearly half (48%) received one opioid prescription during follow-up; 29% received � 3 opioid prescriptions. Of those with opioid prescriptions, 25% (977 patients) had a migraine diagnosis at index date. Among adolescents who received opioids, 28% (1,076 adolescents) had an emergency department (ED) visit for headache during follow-up versus 14% (608 adolescents) who did not receive opioids (p < .01). ED visits with a headache diagnosis during follow-up were strongly correlated with opioid use after adjusting for other covariates (odds ratio, 2.02; 95% confidence interval,1.79e2.29). Despite the treatment guidelines recommending against their use, a large proportion of adolescents with headache were prescribed opioids. ED visits were strongly correlated with opioid prescriptions.

Objective: To update the 1997 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter regarding sports concussion, focusing on 4 questions: 1) What factors increase/decrease concussion risk? 2) What diagnostic tools identify those with concussion and those at increased risk for severe/prolonged early impairments, neurologic catastrophe, or chronic neurobehavioral impairment? 3) What clinical factors identify those at increased risk for severe/prolonged early postconcussion impairments, neurologic catastrophe, recurrent concussions, or chronic neurobehavioral impairment? 4) What interventions enhance recovery, reduce recurrent concussion risk, or diminish long-term sequelae? The complete guideline on which this summary is based is available as an online data supplement to this article. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature from 1955 to June 2012 for pertinent evidence. We assessed evidence for quality and synthesized into conclusions using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. We used a modified Delphi process to develop recommendations. Results: Specific risk factors can increase or decrease concussion risk. Diagnostic tools to help identify individuals with concussion include graded symptom checklists, the Standardized Assessment of Concussion, neuropsychological assessments, and the Balance Error Scoring System. Ongoing clinical symptoms, concussion history, and younger age identify those at risk for postconcussion impairments. Risk factors for recurrent concussion include history of multiple concussions, particularly within 10 days after initial concussion. Risk factors for chronic neurobehavioral impairment include concussion exposure and APOE e4 genotype. Data are insufficient to show that any intervention enhances recovery or diminishes long-term sequelae postconcussion. Practice recommendations are presented for preparticipation counseling, management of suspected concussion, and management of diagnosed concussion.

American Academy of Neurology (AAN) members assign high value to clinical practice guidelines. In a 2006 needs assessment survey, 82% of members rated guidelines as “important” or “very important.”1 Moreover, a 2009 survey of a representative sample of AAN members found that 75% used 1–6 AAN guidelines in the past year.2 However, the AAN has received feedback suggesting that guidelines without high-level recommendations (i.e., Level A or B) should not be published because they do not guide practice. Indeed, to account for lower levels of evidence, many specialty medical societies “fill in the gaps” with consensus and expert opinion–based recommendations. The AAN has decided not to incorporate consensus so as not to substitute the judgment of its members with the judgment of an expert panel, and maintains strict adherence to its evidence-based process. This decision was made with full knowledge that it may result in guidelines that are not as prescriptive for practice as many would find desirable. Such policy acknowledges that there are some questions that evidence-based medicine is ill-suited to answer and some important questions for which high-quality research is lacking. Nonetheless, the AAN′s guideline development subcommittees (Quality Standards Subcommittee [QSS] and Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee [TTA]) believe that AAN guidelines are valuable tools regardless of the level of recommendation they contain. Our reasons for this belief follow. First, development of these documents involves performing a literature review for all evidence related to an answerable clinical question and grading it according to the AAN′s classification scheme.3 In view of the volume of literature available, a comprehensive but focused distillation of the evidence itself provides …

The recent BMJ article on viewing clinical guidelines with scepticism focused mainly on the recent American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) guideline advocating use of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA; alteplase) in select patients within 4.5 hours of onset of ischaemic stroke.1 The author published a similar article in the BMJ in 2002 focusing on conflicts of interests among the investigators and potential methodological flaws in the original National Institutes of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke (NINDS) stroke study.2 This premise was subsequently debunked when an independent author panel reviewed the data and arrived at the same conclusions.3 Ensuing randomised trials have also supported the original findings. Since then, professional organizations including the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine have published guidelines supporting alteplase in stroke. The Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospital Organizations has made alteplase use a quality metric and has developed primary and comprehensive stroke center certification to encourage its use. These endeavours have probably contributed to the improving outcomes for stroke patients in the US. …

Objective: To review evidence-based and consensus guidelines for the treatment of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) and consider how outcome measures could standardize and improve patient care. Background There are no evidence-based quality care indicators to standardize outcomes across Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) clinics. We reviewed the Cystic Fibrosis (CF) model for standardizing CF clinic outcomes and consider potential outcomes to assess the quality of care in DMD clinics. For forty years, the CF foundation has maintained a nationwide patient registry and acquired patient data from each CF clinic. The data, analyzed yearly, is reviewable on the CF website. Comparing individual and national clinic outcomes challenges clinics to improve clinical care. This data also provides potential patient populations for future investigations, including clinical trials. Design/Methods: We reviewed: published guidelines and consensus statements on the care of DMD; current efforts to obtain outcomes from DMD clinics; standardized data obtained annually from CF clinics; and published approaches to improving outcomes by attention to the fidelity of health care delivery. Results: There are multiple approaches within the DMD field for surveillance and collection of patient information, including MDSTARNet, Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, and MDA DMD Clinical Research Network. Based on CF analyzed data, a similar patient registry and nationwide reporting of standard outcomes across MDA clinics appears feasible. Monitoring data including molecular diagnosis, age at loss of ambulation, FVC, and survival, could provide metrics for quality of care. Conclusions: There are logistic challenges to reporting nationwide outcomes; however the influence this model has had on outcomes for CF patients has changed survival. In 2009, the median life expectancy for a patient with CF was 35.9 years, compared to 27 years in 1985. Implementation of clinical data monitoring in MDA clinics will determine if similar benefit accrues in patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Disclosure: Dr. Scully has nothing to disclose. Dr. Cwik has nothing to disclose. Dr. Marshall has nothing to disclose. Dr. Ciafaloni has nothing to disclose. Dr. Getchius has nothing to disclose. Dr. Griggs has nothing to disclose.