University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
About: University of Modena and Reggio Emilia is a(n) education organization based out in Modena, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Transplantation. The organization has 8179 authors who have published 22418 publication(s) receiving 671337 citation(s). The organization is also known as: Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia & Universita degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Stem cell, Cancer, Breast cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
18 Aug 2009-Annals of Internal Medicine
TL;DR: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is introduced, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Abstract: Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Us...
University of Manchester1, University of Barcelona2, St George's Hospital3, University of Marburg4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, Imperial College London6, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia7, University of Michigan8, Hokkaido University9, University of British Columbia10
TL;DR: It is recommended that spirometry is required for the clinical diagnosis of COPD to avoid misdiagnosis and to ensure proper evaluation of severity of airflow limitation.
Abstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health problem. It is the fourth leading cause of chronic morbidity and mortality in the United States, and is projected to rank fifth in 2020 in burden of disease worldwide, according to a study published by the World Bank/World Health Organization. Yet, COPD remains relatively unknown or ignored by the public as well as public health and government officials. In 1998, in an effort to bring more attention to COPD, its management, and its prevention, a committed group of scientists encouraged the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the World Health Organization to form the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Among the important objectives of GOLD are to increase awareness of COPD and to help the millions of people who suffer from this disease and die prematurely of it or its complications. The first step in the GOLD program was to prepare a consensus report, Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, published in 2001. The present, newly revised document follows the same format as the original consensus report, but has been updated to reflect the many publications on COPD that have appeared. GOLD national leaders, a network of international experts, have initiated investigations of the causes and prevalence of COPD in their countries, and developed innovative approaches for the dissemination and implementation of COPD management guidelines. We appreciate the enormous amount of work the GOLD national leaders have done on behalf of their patients with COPD. Despite the achievements in the 5 years since the GOLD report was originally published, considerable additional work is ahead of us if we are to control this major public health problem. The GOLD initiative will continue to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, but a concerted effort by all involved in health care will be necessary.
01 Jan 2006-Cytotherapy
TL;DR: The Mesenchymal and Tissue Stem Cell Committee of the International Society for Cellular Therapy proposes minimal criteria to define human MSC, believing this minimal set of standard criteria will foster a more uniform characterization of MSC and facilitate the exchange of data among investigators.
Abstract: The considerable therapeutic potential of human multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) has generated markedly increasing interest in a wide variety of biomedical disciplines. However, investig...
01 Jan 2015-Systematic Reviews
TL;DR: A reporting guideline is described, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), which consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review.
Abstract: Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4 +2519 more•Institutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: 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 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process 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 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. 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 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. 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 autophagy-related 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.
Showing all 8179 results
|Carlo M. Croce||198||1135||189007|
|Gregory Y.H. Lip||169||3159||171742|
|Peter M. Rothwell||134||779||67382|
|Leonardo M. Fabbri||109||566||60838|
|David N. Reinhoudt||107||1082||48814|
|Brian K. Shoichet||98||281||40313|
|Thomas A. Buchholz||93||494||33409|
|Pier Luigi Zinzani||92||857||35476|
Related Institutions (5)
University of Bologna
115.1K papers, 3.4M citations
Sapienza University of Rome
155.4K papers, 4.3M citations
University of Padua
114.8K papers, 3.6M citations
University of Milan
139.7K papers, 4.6M citations
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
176.5K papers, 6.2M citations