BACKGROUND: Regular and consistent disease assessment could provide a clearer picture of burden in generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG) and improve patient care; however, the use of assessment tools in practice lacks standardisation. This modified Delphi approach was taken to review current evidence on assessment tool use in gMG and develop expert-derived consensus recommendations for good practice.
METHODS: A European expert panel of 15 experienced gMG neurologists contributed to development of this consensus, four of whom formed a lead Sub-committee. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes) framework was used to define six clinical questions on gMG assessment tools, a systematic literature review was conducted, and evidence-based statements were developed. According to a modified Delphi voting process, consensus was reached when ≥70% of the experts rated agreement with a statement as ≥8 on a scale of 1-10.
RESULTS: Eighteen expert- and evidence-based consensus statements based on six themes were developed. Key recommendations include: consistent use of the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living score (MG-ADL) across clinical settings, followed by a simple question (e.g., Patient Acceptable Symptom State [PASS]) or scale to determine patient satisfaction in clinical practice; use of a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis [QMG] or quality of life [QoL] assessment when the MG-ADL indicates disease worsening; and consideration of symptom state to determine the timing and frequency of recommended assessments. Expert panel consensus was reached on all 18 statements after two voting rounds.
CONCLUSIONS: This process provided evidence- and expert consensus-based recommendations for the use of objective and subjective assessment tools across gMG research and care to improve management and outcomes for patients.

Breast reconstructive surgery is often performed following breast cancer treatment to restore the natural appearance of the breast. Despite various research performed in this field, there is a discrepancy between the research question that is considered crucial jointly by patients, carers and healthcare professionals and the research performed. The Breast Reconstruction Priority Setting Partnership was formed to determine the top research priorities in all aspects of breast reconstructive surgery.
The Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was conducted in line with James Lind Alliance (JLA) principles involving patients and clinicians. An online survey was conducted to gather uncertainties related to breast reconstruction by involving patients, carers and clinicians. Following this, a modified Delphi consensus process was performed to identify the top 10 research priorities.
A total of 239 unique research uncertainties were identified via the online survey, which involved 100 participants. A review of literature established that 58 of these uncertainties did not have a high-quality systematic review, prompting the need for more in-depth research. A further 28 research uncertainties were obtained by performing a literature search. Of the final 86 unique questions, the Delphi panel achieved consensus on the top ten research priorities. Recommendations to address these research priorities have been put forward based on current evidence.
This study involved patients, carers and healthcare professionals to establish the top 10 priority areas for research in breast reconstructive surgery. Recommendations have been put forward on the necessary future research that is required to address these uncertainties.

Pharmacists applied deprescribing, which is a process for the rational use of drugs, for 13 at-home patients. The standard used for the rational use of drugs was the \"Guidelines for Medical Treatment and Its Safety in the Elderly\" (the Guidelines). The results of the deprescribing were discussed with physicians to determine prescriptions. After the prescription change, activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL were assessed using the Barthel Index and SF-36v2, respectively. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were detected in 10 of the 13 patients (76.9%). This detection rate is higher than previous PIM detection rates of 48.4% and 40.4% reported in prescriptions for home-care patients in Japan under the Beers and STOPP/START criteria. The Guidelines appeared useful as a decision support tool for deprescribing. The patients continuing the changed prescriptions showed no decrease in ADL or QOL after deprescribing, suggesting its rationality. The 10 measurement items of the Barthel Index were all suitable for evaluating the physical conditions of the patients. Meanwhile, SF-36v2 includes many items, but few indexes were directly applicable.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the use of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy as adjuvant or salvage therapy.
METHODS: A systematic literature review using the PubMed®, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed publications relevant to the use of radiotherapy after prostatectomy. The review yielded 294 articles; these publications were used to create the evidence-based guideline statements. Additional guidance is provided as Clinical Principles when insufficient evidence existed.
RESULTS: Guideline statements are provided for patient counseling, the use of radiotherapy in the adjuvant and salvage contexts, defining biochemical recurrence, and conducting a re-staging evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should offer adjuvant radiotherapy to patients with adverse pathologic findings at prostatectomy (i.e., seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension) and should offer salvage radiotherapy to patients with prostatic specific antigen or local recurrence after prostatectomy in whom there is no evidence of distant metastatic disease. The offer of radiotherapy should be made in the context of a thoughtful discussion of possible short- and long-term side effects of radiotherapy as well as the potential benefits of preventing recurrence. The decision to administer radiotherapy should be made by the patient and the multi-disciplinary treatment team with full consideration of the patient\'s history, values, preferences, quality of life, and functional status. Please visit the ASTRO and AUA websites (http://www.redjournal.org/webfiles/images/journals/rob/RAP%20Guideline.pdf and http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/radiation-after-prostatectomy.cfm) to view this guideline in its entirety, including the full literature review.

OBJECTIVE: This Guideline is intended to provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer based on currently available published data.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was conducted using controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords relating to the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. The search strategy was developed and executed by reference librarians and methodologists to create an evidence report limited to English-language, published peer-reviewed literature. This review yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013 that were used to form a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence-based data.
RESULTS: Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians on the appropriate use of observation, androgen-deprivation and antiandrogen therapy, androgen synthesis inhibitors, immunotherapy, radionuclide therapy, systemic chemotherapy, palliative care and bone health. These were based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: As a direct result of the significant increase in FDA-approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic CRPC, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing of these agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient\'s treatment goals. In all cases, patients\' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies.