Délégation Paris 5

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

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.

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

OBJECTIVE: The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. METHODS: A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease--this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis." RESULTS: In the new criteria set, classification as "definite RA" is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0-5), serologic abnormality (score range 0-3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0-1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0-1). CONCLUSION: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct "rheumatoid arthritis."

2012 Revised International Chapel Hill Consensus Conference Nomenclature of Vasculitides J. Jennette;R. Falk;P. Bacon;N. Basu;M. Cid;F. Ferrario;L. Flores-Suarez;W. Gross;L. Guillevin;E. Hagen;G. Hoffman;D. Jayne;C. Kallenberg;P. Lamprecht;C. Langford;R. Luqmani;A. Mahr;E. Matteson;P. Merkel;S. Ozen;C. Pusey;N. Rasmussen;A. Rees;D. Scott;U. Specks;J. Stone;K. Takahashi;R. Watts; Arthritis & Rheumatism

The role of the adaptive immune response in controlling the growth and recurrence of human tumors has been controversial. We characterized the tumor-infiltrating immune cells in large cohorts of human colorectal cancers by gene expression profiling and in situ immunohistochemical staining. Collectively, the immunological data (the type, density, and location of immune cells within the tumor samples) were found to be a better predictor of patient survival than the histopathological methods currently used to stage colorectal cancer. The results were validated in two additional patient populations. These data support the hypothesis that the adaptive immune response influences the behavior of human tumors. In situ analysis of tumor-infiltrating immune cells may therefore be a valuable prognostic tool in the treatment of colorectal cancer and possibly other malignancies.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Good bacteria help fight cancer Resident gut bacteria can affect patient responses to cancer immunotherapy (see the Perspective by Jobin). Routy et al. show that antibiotic consumption is associated with poor response to immunotherapeutic PD-1 blockade. They profiled samples from patients with lung and kidney cancers and found that nonresponding patients had low levels of the bacterium Akkermansia muciniphila . Oral supplementation of the bacteria to antibiotic-treated mice restored the response to immunotherapy. Matson et al. and Gopalakrishnan et al. studied melanoma patients receiving PD-1 blockade and found a greater abundance of “good” bacteria in the guts of responding patients. Nonresponders had an imbalance in gut flora composition, which correlated with impaired immune cell activity. Thus, maintaining healthy gut flora could help patients combat cancer. Science , this issue p. 91 , p. 104 , p. 97 ; see also p. 32

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. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 many cases, 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. 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 for reviewers 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 multiple assays to monitor autophagy. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

We introduce the Microenvironment Cell Populations-counter (MCP-counter) method, which allows the robust quantification of the absolute abundance of eight immune and two stromal cell populations in heterogeneous tissues from transcriptomic data. We present in vitro mRNA mixture and ex vivo immunohistochemical data that quantitatively support the validity of our method's estimates. Additionally, we demonstrate that MCP-counter overcomes several limitations or weaknesses of previously proposed computational approaches. MCP-counter is applied to draw a global picture of immune infiltrates across human healthy tissues and non-hematopoietic human tumors and recapitulates microenvironment-based patient stratifications associated with overall survival in lung adenocarcinoma and colorectal and breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. FINDINGS: We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. INTERPRETATION: All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Antibodies targeting CTLA-4 have been successfully used as cancer immunotherapy. We find that the antitumor effects of CTLA-4 blockade depend on distinct Bacteroides species. In mice and patients, T cell responses specific for B. thetaiotaomicron or B. fragilis were associated with the efficacy of CTLA-4 blockade. Tumors in antibiotic-treated or germ-free mice did not respond to CTLA blockade. This defect was overcome by gavage with B. fragilis, by immunization with B. fragilis polysaccharides, or by adoptive transfer of B. fragilis-specific T cells. Fecal microbial transplantation from humans to mice confirmed that treatment of melanoma patients with antibodies against CTLA-4 favored the outgrowth of B. fragilis with anticancer properties. This study reveals a key role for Bacteroidales in the immunostimulatory effects of CTLA-4 blockade.

Procedures for examining whether treatment effects on an outcome are mediated and/or moderated have been well developed and are routinely applied. The mediation question focuses on the intervening mechanism that produces the treatment effect. The moderation question focuses on factors that affect the magnitude of the treatment effect. It is important to note that these two processes may be combined in informative ways, such that moderation is mediated or mediation is moderated. Although some prior literature has discussed these possibilities, their exact definitions and analytic procedures have not been completely articulated. The purpose of this article is to define precisely both mediated moderation and moderated mediation and provide analytic strategies for assessing each.

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

OBJECTIVES: WGS-based antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is as reliable as phenotypic AST for several antimicrobial/bacterial species combinations. However, routine use of WGS-based AST is hindered by the need for bioinformatics skills and knowledge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) determinants to operate the vast majority of tools developed to date. By leveraging on ResFinder and PointFinder, two freely accessible tools that can also assist users without bioinformatics skills, we aimed at increasing their speed and providing an easily interpretable antibiogram as output. METHODS: The ResFinder code was re-written to process raw reads and use Kmer-based alignment. The existing ResFinder and PointFinder databases were revised and expanded. Additional databases were developed including a genotype-to-phenotype key associating each AMR determinant with a phenotype at the antimicrobial compound level, and species-specific panels for in silico antibiograms. ResFinder 4.0 was validated using Escherichia coli (n = 584), Salmonella spp. (n = 1081), Campylobacter jejuni (n = 239), Enterococcus faecium (n = 106), Enterococcus faecalis (n = 50) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 163) exhibiting different AST profiles, and from different human and animal sources and geographical origins. RESULTS: Genotype-phenotype concordance was ≥95% for 46/51 and 25/32 of the antimicrobial/species combinations evaluated for Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, respectively. When genotype-phenotype concordance was <95%, discrepancies were mainly linked to criteria for interpretation of phenotypic tests and suboptimal sequence quality, and not to ResFinder 4.0 performance. CONCLUSIONS: WGS-based AST using ResFinder 4.0 provides in silico antibiograms as reliable as those obtained by phenotypic AST at least for the bacterial species/antimicrobial agents of major public health relevance considered.

Depending on the initiating stimulus, cancer cell death can be immunogenic or nonimmunogenic. Immunogenic cell death (ICD) involves changes in the composition of the cell surface as well as the release of soluble mediators, occurring in a defined temporal sequence. Such signals operate on a series of receptors expressed by dendritic cells to stimulate the presentation of tumor antigens to T cells. We postulate that ICD constitutes a prominent pathway for the activation of the immune system against cancer, which in turn determines the long-term success of anticancer therapies. Hence, suboptimal regimens (failing to induce ICD), selective alterations in cancer cells (preventing the emission of immunogenic signals during ICD), or defects in immune effectors (abolishing the perception of ICD by the immune system) can all contribute to therapeutic failure. We surmise that ICD and its subversion by pathogens also play major roles in antiviral immune responses.

Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table 1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.Table 1: Glossary of ICD-11 terms.The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Üstün and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.Figure 1: Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to the IASP Council on an annual basis.2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines.7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma26; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more).15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely.21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain.22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present.36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders,32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache.2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain,3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches.1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities.24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain).12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs30; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation.9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The authors are members of the Classification of Pain Diseases Task Force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), which gave logistical and financial support to perform this work. We acknowledge the contributions of the following IASP Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Abdominal & Pelvic Pain SIG, Acute Pain SIG, Cancer Pain SIG, Neuropathic Pain SIG and the Orofacial Pain SIG, and the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). Author contributions: R.-D. Treede, W. Rief, and A. Barke contributed equally to this topical review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to formulate clinical practice guidelines for pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). PARTICIPANTS: The Task Force included a chair selected by the Endocrine Society Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee (CGS), seven experts in the field, and a methodologist. The authors received no corporate funding or remuneration. EVIDENCE: This evidence-based guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to describe both the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. The Task Force reviewed primary evidence and commissioned two additional systematic reviews. CONSENSUS PROCESS: One group meeting, several conference calls, and e-mail communications enabled consensus. Committees and members of the Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, and Americal Association for Clinical Chemistry reviewed drafts of the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force recommends that initial biochemical testing for PPGLs should include measurements of plasma free or urinary fractionated metanephrines. Consideration should be given to preanalytical factors leading to false-positive or false-negative results. All positive results require follow-up. Computed tomography is suggested for initial imaging, but magnetic resonance is a better option in patients with metastatic disease or when radiation exposure must be limited. (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is a useful imaging modality for metastatic PPGLs. We recommend consideration of genetic testing in all patients, with testing by accredited laboratories. Patients with paraganglioma should be tested for SDHx mutations, and those with metastatic disease for SDHB mutations. All patients with functional PPGLs should undergo preoperative blockade to prevent perioperative complications. Preparation should include a high-sodium diet and fluid intake to prevent postoperative hypotension. We recommend minimally invasive adrenalectomy for most pheochromocytomas with open resection for most paragangliomas. Partial adrenalectomy is an option for selected patients. Lifelong follow-up is suggested to detect recurrent or metastatic disease. We suggest personalized management with evaluation and treatment by multidisciplinary teams with appropriate expertise to ensure favorable outcomes.

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.