Explore the vast range of titles available.

脑转移已成为非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC）患者治疗全程管理中的重大挑战，在携带驱动基因突变的患者中尤为突出。传统治疗如放射治疗和外科手术的临床获益有限，且常伴随认知功能障碍和生活质量下降。近年来，针对表皮生长因子受体（epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR）、间变性淋巴瘤激酶（anaplastic lymphoma kinase, ALK）等靶点的新型小分子酪氨酸激酶抑制剂不断涌现，有效穿透血脑屏障的同时提升了颅内药物浓度、改善患者预后，从而打破了NSCLC脑转移既往的治疗格局。因此，中国医药教育协会肺癌医学教育专业委员会、北京医学奖励基金会肺癌医学青年专家委员会脑转移协作组联合发起并制定了《中国驱动基因阳性非小细胞肺癌脑转移临床诊疗指南（2025版）》。本指南通过整合最新研究成果与临床经验，基于多学科诊疗原则，涵盖驱动基因阳性NSCLC脑转移的诊断、治疗时机及系统和局部治疗选择等内容。同时，指南提出了针对不同驱动基因类型的个体化治疗策略，旨在为临床医师提供参考，提升中国NSCLC脑转移的整体诊疗水平。

In 2016, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) published comprehensive guidelines for obtaining consent for endoscopic procedures. In November 2020, the General Medical Council (GMC) introduced updated guidelines on shared decision making and consent. These guidelines followed the Montgomery ruling in 2015, which changed the legal doctrine determining what information should be given to a patient before a medical intervention. The GMC guidance and Montgomery ruling expand on the role of shared decision making between the clinician and patient, explicitly highlighting the importance of understanding the values of the patient. In November 2021, the BSG President’s Bulletin highlighted the 2020 GMC guidance and the need to incorporate patient -related factors into decision making. Here, we make formal recommendations in support of this communication, and update the 2016 BSG endoscopy consent guidelines. The BSG guideline refers to the Montgomery legislation, but this document expands on the findings and gives proposals for how to incorporate it into the consent process. The document is to accompany, not replace the recent GMC and BSG guidelines. The recommendations are made in the understanding that there is not a single solution to the consent process, but that medical practitioners and services must work together to ensure that the principles and recommendations laid out below are deliverable at a local level. The 2020 GMC and 2016 BSG guidance had patient representatives involved throughout the process. Further patient involvement was not sought here as this update is to give practical advice on how to incorporate these guidelines into clinical practice and the consent process. This document should be read by endoscopists and referrers from primary and secondary care.

Background: Clinical guidelines are a constructive response to the reality that practicing physicians require assistance in assimilating and applying the exponentially expanding, often contradictory, body of medical knowledge. They attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients under most circumstances. Ideally, specific clinical recommendations contained within practice guidelines are systematically developed by expert panels who have access to all the available evidence, have an understanding of the clinical problem, and have clinical experience with the procedure being assessed, as well as knowledge of relevant research methods. The recent development of American Pain Society (APS) guidelines has created substantial controversy because of their perceived lack of objective analysis and recommendations perceived to be biased due to conflicts of interest. Objectives: To formally and carefully assess the APS guidelines’ evidence synthesis for low back pain for therapeutic interventions using the same methodology utilized by the APS authors. The interventions examined were therapeutic interventions for managing low back pain, including epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, and spinal cord stimulation. Methods: A literature search by 2 authors was carried out utilizing appropriate databases from 1966 through July 2008. Articles in which conflicts arose were reviewed and mediated by a third author to arrive at a consensus. Selections of manuscripts and methodologic quality assessment was also performed by at least 2 authors utilizing the same criteria applied in the APS guidelines. The guideline reassessment process included the evaluation of individual studies and systematic reviews and their translation into practice recommendations. Results: The conclusions of APS and our critical assessment based on grading of good, fair, and poor, agreed that there is fair evidence for spinal cord stimulation in post lumbar surgery syndrome, and poor evidence for lumbar intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural steroids for conditions other than disc herniation or radiculitis, sacroiliac joint injections, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, endoscopic adhesiolysis, and intrathecal therapy. However, our assessment of APS guidelines for other interventional techniques, utilizing their own criteria, showed fair evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, caudal epidural injections in disc herniation or radiculitis, percutaneous adhesiolysis in post lumbar surgery syndrome, radiofrequency neurotomy, and transforaminal epidural injections in radiculitis. Also it is illustrated that inclusion of latest literature will change the conclusions, with improved grading – caudal epidural, adhesiolysis, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks from fair to good or poor to fair. The present critical assessment review illustrates that APS guidelines have utilized multiple studies inappropriately and have excluded appropriate studies. Our integrity assessment shows deep concerns that the APS guidelines illustrating significant methodologic failures which raise concerns about transparency, accountability, consistency, and independence. Conclusion: The current reassessment, using appropriate methodology, shows evidence similar to APS guidelines for several procedures, but differs extensively from published APS guidelines for multiple other procedures including caudal epidural injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy, and percutaneous adhesiolysis. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, American Pain Society, interventional pain management, interventional techniques