Epilepsy surgery is an effective treatment in many patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsies. An early decision for surgical therapy is facilitated by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible brain lesion congruent with the electrophysiologically abnormal brain region. Recent advances in the pathologic diagnosis and classification of epileptogenic brain lesions are helpful for clinical correlation, outcome stratification, and patient management. However, application of international consensus classification systems to common epileptic pathologies (e.g., focal cortical dysplasia [FCD] and hippocampal sclerosis [HS]) necessitates standardized protocols for neuropathologic workup of epilepsy surgery specimens. To this end, the Task Force of Neuropathology from the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission on Diagnostic Methods developed a consensus standard operational procedure for tissue inspection, distribution, and processing. The aims are to provide a systematic framework for histopathologic workup, meeting minimal standards and maximizing current and future opportunities for morphofunctional correlations and molecular studies for both clinical care and research. Whenever feasible, anatomically intact surgical specimens are desirable to enable systematic analysis in selective hippocampectomies, temporal lobe resections, and lesional or nonlesional neocortical samples. Correct orientation of sample and the sample\'s relation to neurophysiologically aberrant sites requires good communication between pathology and neurosurgical teams. Systematic tissue sampling of 5-mm slabs along a defined anatomic axis and application of a limited immunohistochemical panel will ensure a reliable differential diagnosis of main pathologies encountered in epilepsy surgery.

BACKGROUND: With the growing use of electronic health record systems, there is a demand for an electronic version of the leading American pediatric preventive care guideline, Bright Futures. As computer implementation requires actionable recommendations, it is important to assess to what degree Bright Futures meets criteria for actionability.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to 1) determine the number of actionable recommendations in the current edition of Bright Futures and 2) to recommend a specific format for representing an important class of guidelines in a way that better facilitates computer implementation.
METHODS: We consolidated all action statements in Bright Futures into recommendations. We then used two dimensions (decidability and executability) in the Guideline Implementability Appraisal v 2.0 (GLIA) to determine the actionability of the recommendations. Decidability means the recommendation states precisely under what conditions to perform those actions. Executability means actions are stated specifically, unambiguously and in sufficient detail. The results were presented in a figure titled Service Interval Diagram (SID), describing actionable recommendations, age intervals during which they are applicable, and how frequently they should occur in that interval.
RESULTS: We consolidated 2161 action items into 245 recommendations and identified 52 that were actionable (21%). Almost exclusively, these recommendations addressed screening, such as newborn metabolic screening, or child safety, such as car seat use. A limited number (n=13) of recommendations for other areas of anticipatory guidance were also actionable. No recommendations on child discipline, family function or mental health met our criteria for actionability. The SID representing these recommendations is presented in a figure.
CONCLUSIONS: Only a portion of the Bright Futures Guidelines meets criteria for actionability. Substantial work lies ahead to develop most recommendations for anticipatory guidance into a computer implementable format.