University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, systematic review registration number Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review No of records identified through database searching No of additional records identified through other sources No of records after duplicates removed No of studies included in qualitative synthesis No of studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis)

se ha posicionado como un centro de referencia asistencial y académica, con la proyección de conformar clínicas o centros de excelencia.Para lograr este objetivo, es indispensable que realice y se ciña a sus propias guías de práctica clínica o estándares clínicos basados en la evidencia (ECBE), que permita una adecuada y estandarizada atención de pacientes aplicando la mejor evidencia médica disponible.La obesidad es una patología de alta prevalencia en la población general, siendo uno de los motivos de consulta más

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global health problem, and since 2001, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) has published its strategy document for the diagnosis and management of COPD. This executive summary presents the main contents of the second 5-year revision of the GOLD document that has implemented some of the vast knowledge about COPD accumulated over the last years. Today, GOLD recommends that spirometry is required for the clinical diagnosis of COPD to avoid misdiagnosis and to ensure proper evaluation of severity of airflow limitation. The document highlights that the assessment of the patient with COPD should always include assessment of (1) symptoms, (2) severity of airflow limitation, (3) history of exacerbations, and (4) comorbidities. The first three points can be used to evaluate level of symptoms and risk of future exacerbations, and this is done in a way that splits patients with COPD into four categories-A, B, C, and D. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of COPD match this assessment in an evidence-based attempt to relieve symptoms and reduce risk of exacerbations. Identification and treatment of comorbidities must have high priority, and a separate section in the document addresses management of comorbidities as well as COPD in the presence of comorbidities. The revised document also contains a new section on exacerbations of COPD. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of all relevant shareholders and will hopefully inspire future national and local guidelines on the management of COPD.

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

This document is an international evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis and management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and is a collaborative effort of the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Japanese Respiratory Society, and the Latin American Thoracic Association. It represents the current state of knowledge regarding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and contains sections on definition and epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, natural history, staging and prognosis, treatment, and monitoring disease course. For the diagnosis and treatment sections, pragmatic GRADE evidence-based methodology was applied in a question-based format. For each diagnosis and treatment question, the committee graded the quality of the evidence available (high, moderate, low, or very low), and made a recommendation (yes or no, strong or weak). Recommendations were based on majority vote. It is emphasized that clinicians must spend adequate time with patients to discuss patients' values and preferences and decide on the appropriate course of action.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is thatthere is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the completeprocess including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in manycases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as forreviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multipleassays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagyrelated protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

In this paper we extend the "network theory of aging," and we argue that a global reduction in the capacity to cope with a variety of stressors and a concomitant progressive increase in proinflammatory status are major characteristics of the aging process. This phenomenon, which we will refer to as "inflamm-aging," is provoked by a continuous antigenic load and stress. On the basis of evolutionary studies, we also argue that the immune and the stress responses are equivalent and that antigens are nothing other than particular types of stressors. We also propose to return macrophage to its rightful place as central actor not only in the inflammatory response and immunity, but also in the stress response. The rate of reaching the threshold of proinflammatory status over which diseases/disabilities ensue and the individual capacity to cope with and adapt to stressors are assumed to be complex traits with a genetic component. Finally, we argue that the persistence of inflammatory stimuli over time represents the biologic background (first hit) favoring the susceptibility to age-related diseases/disabilities. A second hit (absence of robust gene variants and/or presence of frail gene variants) is likely necessary to develop overt organ-specific age-related diseases having an inflammatory pathogenesis, such as atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and diabetes. Following this perspective, several paradoxes of healthy centenarians (increase of plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines, acute phase proteins, and coagulation factors) are illustrated and explained. In conclusion, the beneficial effects of inflammation devoted to the neutralization of dangerous/harmful agents early in life and in adulthood become detrimental late in life in a period largely not foreseen by evolution, according to the antagonistic pleiotropy theory of aging.

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by degeneration of dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra. We previously mapped a locus for a rare familial form of PD to chromosome 1p36 (PARK6). Here we show that mutations in PINK1 (PTEN-induced kinase 1) are associated with PARK6. We have identified two homozygous mutations affecting the PINK1 kinase domain in three consanguineous PARK6 families: a truncating nonsense mutation and a missense mutation at a highly conserved amino acid. Cell culture studies suggest that PINK1 is mitochondrially located and may exert a protective effect on the cell that is abrogated by the mutations, resulting in increased susceptibility to cellular stress. These data provide a direct molecular link between mitochondria and the pathogenesis of PD.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safetyof health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however,is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, andother users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—areporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practicaladvances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews ofpublished systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported.Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologistsdeveloped PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution ofthe original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health careinterventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. Thechecklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In thisExplanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. Foreach item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empiricalstudies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site(http://www. prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematicreviews and meta-analyses.

This Executive Summary of the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 report focuses primarily on the revised and novel parts of the document. The most significant changes include: (1) the assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been refined to separate the spirometric assessment from symptom evaluation. ABCD groups are now proposed to be derived exclusively from patient symptoms and their history of exacerbations; (2) for each of the groups A to D, escalation strategies for pharmacologic treatments are proposed; (3) the concept of deescalation of therapy is introduced in the treatment assessment scheme; (4) nonpharmacologic therapies are comprehensively presented; and (5) the importance of comorbid conditions in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is reviewed.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

Abstract The 2018 edition of the United Nations World Water Development Report stated that nearly 6 billion peoples will suffer from clean water scarcity by 2050. This is the result of increasing demand for water, reduction of water resources, and increasing pollution of water, driven by dramatic population and economic growth. It is suggested that this number may be an underestimation, and scarcity of clean water by 2050 may be worse as the effects of the three drivers of water scarcity, as well as of unequal growth, accessibility and needs, are underrated. While the report promotes the spontaneous adoption of nature-based-solutions within an unconstrained population and economic expansion, there is an urgent need to regulate demography and economy, while enforcing clear rules to limit pollution, preserve aquifers and save water, equally applying everywhere. The aim of this paper is to highlight the inter-linkage in between population and economic growth and water demand, resources and pollution, that ultimately drive water scarcity, and the relevance of these aspects in local, rather than global, perspective, with a view to stimulating debate.

Molecular docking is an established in silico structure-based method widely used in drug discovery. Docking enables the identification of novel compounds of therapeutic interest, predicting ligand-target interactions at a molecular level, or delineating structure-activity relationships (SAR), without knowing a priori the chemical structure of other target modulators. Although it was originally developed to help understanding the mechanisms of molecular recognition between small and large molecules, uses and applications of docking in drug discovery have heavily changed over the last years. In this review, we describe how molecular docking was firstly applied to assist in drug discovery tasks. Then, we illustrate newer and emergent uses and applications of docking, including prediction of adverse effects, polypharmacology, drug repurposing, and target fishing and profiling, discussing also future applications and further potential of this technique when combined with emergent techniques, such as artificial intelligence.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the 12-month and lifetime prevalence rates of mood, anxiety and alcohol disorders in six European countries. METHOD: A representative random sample of non-institutionalized inhabitants from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain aged 18 or older (n = 21425) were interviewed between January 2001 and August 2003. DSM-IV disorders were assessed by lay interviewers using a revised version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI). RESULTS: Fourteen per cent reported a lifetime history of any mood disorder, 13.6% any anxiety disorder and 5.2% a lifetime history of any alcohol disorder. More than 6% reported any anxiety disorder, 4.2% any mood disorder, and 1.0% any alcohol disorder in the last year. Major depression and specific phobia were the most common single mental disorders. Women were twice as likely to suffer 12-month mood and anxiety disorders as men, while men were more likely to suffer alcohol abuse disorders. CONCLUSION: ESEMeD is the first study to highlight the magnitude of mental disorders in the six European countries studied. Mental disorders were frequent, more common in female, unemployed, disabled persons, or persons who were never married or previously married. Younger persons were also more likely to have mental disorders, indicating an early age of onset for mood, anxiety and alcohol disorders.

The GRADE system classifies recommendations made in guidelines as either strong or weak. This article explores the meaning of these descriptions and their implications for patients, clinicians, and policy makers