There are no validated diagnostic criteria for traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES). During the early and middle 20th century, TES was described as a clinical condition that was experienced by some high-exposure boxers-and it was believed to reflect chronic traumatic brain injury. Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of TES were published in 2021. We applied the consensus criteria for TES retrospectively to cases of chronic brain damage in boxers described in articles published in the 20th century that were obtained from narrative and systematic reviews. The sample included 157 boxers identified in 21 articles published between 1929 and 1999. Two authors reviewed each case description and coded the criteria for TES. For the core clinical features, cognitive impairment was noted in 63.1%, and in 28.7% of cases the person\'s cognitive functioning appeared to be broadly normal. Neurobehavioral dysregulation was present in 25.5%. One third (34.4%) were identified as progressive, 30.6% were not progressive, and the course could not be clearly determined in 35.0%. In total, 29.9% met the TES consensus criteria, 28.0% did not, and 42.0% had insufficient information to make a diagnostic determination. TES, in the 20th century, was described as a neurological condition, not a psychiatric disorder-and this supports the decision of the 2021 consensus group to remove primary and secondary psychiatric diagnoses from being a core diagnostic feature. Future research is needed to determine whether, or the extent to which, cognitive impairment or neurobehavioral dysregulation described as characterizing TES are associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy neuropathological change.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients with neurourological disorders require lifelong medical care. The European Association of Urology (EAU) regularly updates guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of these patients. The objective of this review is to provide a summary of the 2024 updated EAU guidelines on neurourology.
METHODS: A structured literature review covering the timeframe 2021-2023 was conducted for the guideline update. A level of evidence and a strength rating were assigned for each recommendation on the basis of the literature data.
UNASSIGNED: Neurological conditions significantly affect urinary, sexual, and bowel function, and lifelong management is required for neurourological patients to maintain their quality of life and prevent urinary tract deterioration. Early diagnosis and effective treatment are key, and comprehensive clinical assessments, including urodynamics, are crucial. Management should be customised to individual needs and should involve a multidisciplinary approach and address sexuality and fertility. Lifelong monitoring and follow-up highlight the importance of continuous care for neurourological patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2024 EAU guidelines on neurourology provide an up-to-date overview of available evidence on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for neurourological patients.
RESULTS: Neurological disorders very frequently affect the lower urinary tract and sexual and bowel function and patients need lifelong management. We summarise the updated European Association of Urology guidelines on neurourology to provide patients and caregivers with the latest insights for optimal health care support.

BACKGROUND: The rate of chronic drooling in children older than 4 years is 0.5%, but it rises to 60% in those with neurological disorders. Physical and psychosocial consequences lead to a reduction in the quality of Life (QoL) of affected patients; however, the problem remains under-recognized and under-treated. We conducted an Italian consensus through a modified Delphi survey to discuss the current treatment paradigm of drooling in pediatric patients with neurological disorders.
METHODS: After reviewing the literature, a board of 10 experts defined some statements to be administered to a multidisciplinary panel through an online encrypted platform. The answers to the questions were based on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). The scores were grouped into 1-2 (disagreement) and 4-5 (agreement), while 3 was discarded. The consensus was reached when the sum of the disagreement or agreement was ≥75%.
RESULTS: Fifteen statements covered three main topics, namely clinical manifestations and QoL, quantification of drooling, and treatment strategies. All statements reached consensus (≥75% agreement). The 55 Italian experts agreed that drooling should be assessed in all children with complex needs, having a major impact on the QoL. Attention should be paid to investigating posterior hypersalivation, which is often neglected but may lead to important clinical consequences. Given that the severity of drooling fluctuates over time, its management should be guided by the patients\' current needs. Furthermore, the relative lack of validated and universal scales for drooling quantification limits the evaluation of the response to treatment. Finally, the shared therapeutic paradigm is progressive, with conservative treatments preceding the pharmacological ones and reserving surgery only for selected cases.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the pivotal importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the management of drooling. National experts agree that progressive treatment can reduce the incidence of complications, improve the QoL of patients and caregivers, and save healthcare resources. Finally, this study highlights how the therapeutic strategy should be reconsidered over time according to the available drugs on the market, the progression of symptoms, and the patients\' needs.

Some epilepsy syndromes (sleep-related epilepsies, SREs) have a strong link with sleep. Comorbid sleep disorders are common in patients with SRE and can exert a negative impact on seizure control and quality of life. Our purpose was to define the standard procedures for the diagnostic pathway of patients with possible SRE (scenario 1) and the general management of patients with SRE and comorbidity with sleep disorders (scenario 2).
The project was conducted under the auspices of the European Academy of Neurology, the European Sleep Research Society and the International League Against Epilepsy Europe. The framework entailed the following phases: conception of the clinical scenarios; literature review; statements regarding the standard procedures. For the literature search a stepwise approach starting from systematic reviews to primary studies was applied. Published studies were identified from the National Library of Medicine\'s MEDLINE database and Cochrane Library.
Scenario 1: Despite a low quality of evidence, recommendations on anamnestic evaluation and tools for capturing the event at home or in the laboratory are provided for specific SREs. Scenario 2: Early diagnosis and treatment of sleep disorders (especially respiratory disorders) in patients with SRE are likely to be beneficial for seizure control.
Definitive procedures for evaluating patients with SRE are lacking. Advice is provided that could be of help for standardizing and improving the diagnostic approach of specific SREs. The importance of identifying and treating specific sleep disorders for the management and outcome of patients with SRE is underlined.

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.
We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson\'s disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.
Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.
Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson\'s disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).
All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

The use of Next Generation Sequencing such as Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) is a promising step towards a better understanding and treatment of neurological diseases. WGS can result into unexpected information (incidental findings, IFs), and information with uncertain clinical significance. In the context of a Genome Canada project on \'Personalized Medicine in the Treatment of Epilepsy\', we intended to address these challenges surveying neurologists\' opinions about the type of results that should be returned, and their professional responsibility toward recontacting patients regarding new discovered mutations.
Potential participants were contacted through professional organizations or direct invitations.
A total of 204 neurologists were recruited. Fifty nine percent indicated that to be conveyed, WGS results should have a demonstrated clinical utility for diagnosis, prognosis or treatment. Yet, 41% deemed appropriate to return results without clinical utility, when they could impact patients\' reproductive decisions, or on patients\' request. Current use of targeted genetic testing and age of patients influenced respondents\' answers. Respondents stated that analysis of genomics data resulting from WGS should be limited to the genes likely to be relevant for the patient\'s specific medical condition (69%), so as to limit IFs. Respondents felt responsible to recontact patients and inform them about newly discovered mutations related to the medical condition that triggered the test (75%) for as long as they are following up on the patient (55%). Finally, 53.5% of the respondents felt responsible to recontact and inform patients of clinically significant, newly discovered IFs.
Our results show the importance of formulating professional guidelines sensitive to the various - and sometimes opposite - viewpoints that may prevail within a same community of practice, as well as flexible so as to be attuned to the characteristics of the neurological conditions that triggered a WGS.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is one of the main causes of acute hepatitis in both developed and developing countries. This infectious disease has a high prevalence and incidence in Europe. HEV infection has a greater clinical impact in vulnerable populations, such as immunosuppressed patients, pregnant women and patients with underlying liver disease. Therefore, the Study Group for Viral Hepatitis (Grupo de Estudio de Hepatitis Víricas, GEHEP) of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, SEIMC) believed it very important to prepare a consensus document to help in decision-making regarding diagnosis, clinical and therapeutic management, and prevention of HEV infection.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex disease of the central nervous system. As new drugs are becoming available, knowledge on diagnosis and treatment must continuously evolve. There is therefore a need for a reference tool compiling current data on benefit and safety, to aid professionals in treatment decisions and use of resources across Europe. The European Committee of Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS) and the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) have joined forces to meet this need. The objective was to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the pharmacological treatment of people with MS to guide healthcare professionals in the decision-making process.
This guideline has been developed using the GRADE methodology and following the recently updated EAN recommendations for guideline development. Clinical questions were formulated in PICO format (patient, intervention, comparator, outcome) and outcomes were prioritized according to their relevance to clinical practice. An exhaustive literature search up to December 2016 was performed for each question and the evidence is presented narratively and, when possible, combined in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The quality of evidence for each outcome was rated into four categories - very high, high, low and very low - according to the risk of bias. GRADE evidence profiles were created using GRADEprofiler (GRADEpro) software (Version 3.6). The recommendations with assigned strength (strong, weak) were formulated based on the quality of evidence and the risk-benefit balance. Consensus between the panellists was reached by use of the modified nominal group technique.
A total of 10 questions have been agreed, encompassing treatment efficacy, response criteria, strategies to address suboptimal response and safety concerns and treatment strategies in MS and pregnancy. The guideline takes into account all disease-modifying drugs approved by the European Medicine Agency at the time of publication. A total of 20 recommendations were agreed by the guideline working group members after three rounds of consensus.

To support clinical decision-making in central neurological disorders, a physical examination is used to assess responses to passive muscle stretch. However, what exactly is being assessed is expressed and interpreted in different ways. A clear diagnostic framework is lacking. Therefore, the aim was to arrive at unambiguous terminology about the concepts and measurement around pathophysiological neuromuscular response to passive muscle stretch.
During two consensus meetings, 37 experts from 12 European countries filled online questionnaires based on a Delphi approach, followed by plenary discussion after rounds. Consensus was reached for agreement ≥75%.
The term hyper-resistance should be used to describe the phenomenon of impaired neuromuscular response during passive stretch, instead of for example \'spasticity\' or \'hypertonia\'. From there, it is essential to distinguish non-neural (tissue-related) from neural (central nervous system related) contributions to hyper-resistance. Tissue contributions are elasticity, viscosity and muscle shortening. Neural contributions are velocity dependent stretch hyperreflexia and non-velocity dependent involuntary background activation. The term \'spasticity\' should only be used next to stretch hyperreflexia, and \'stiffness\' next to passive tissue contributions. When joint angle, moment and electromyography are recorded, components of hyper-resistance within the framework can be quantitatively assessed.
A conceptual framework of pathophysiological responses to passive muscle stretch is defined. This framework can be used in clinical assessment of hyper-resistance and will improve communication between clinicians. Components within the framework are defined by objective parameters from instrumented assessment. These parameters need experimental validation in order to develop treatment algorithms based on the aetiology of the clinical phenomena.

BACKGROUND: Neurologists in their clinical practice are faced with inquiries about the suitability of stem cell approaches by patients with a variety of acute and chronic (namely neurodegenerative) disorders. The challenge is to provide these patients with accurate information about the scope of stem cell use as well as at the same time, empowering patients with the capacity to make an autonomous decision regarding the use of stem cells.
METHODS: The Indian Academy of Neurology commissioned an Expert Group Meeting to formulate an advisory to practicing neurologists to counsel patients seeking information and advice about stem cell approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: In the course of such counselling, it should be emphasized that the information provided by many lay websites might be unsubstantiated. Besides, standard recommendations for the stem cell research, in particular, the application of several layers of oversight should be strictly adhered in order to ensure safety and ethical use of stem cells in neurological disorders.