Objective: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included. Study design and setting: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved. Results: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination. Conclusion: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges. To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts. Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods. A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis. The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents’ perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization. Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5–7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3–6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2–5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4–7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5–6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies. The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations.

INTRODUCTION:The high failure rate of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be attributable, in part, to the use of untested or insensitive measurement instruments. Of more than 1,000 clinical outcome assessment measures (COAs) for TBI, few have been systematically vetted to determine their performance within specific "contexts of use (COU)." As described in guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the COU specifies the population of interest and the purpose for which the COA will be employed. COAs are commonly used for screening, diagnostic categorization, outcome prediction, and establishing treatment effectiveness. COA selection typically relies on expert consensus; there is no established methodology to match the appropriateness of a particular COA to a specific COU. We developed and pilot-tested the Evidence-Based Clinical Outcome assessment Platform (EB-COP) to systematically and transparently evaluate the suitability of TBI COAs for specific purposes.METHODS AND FINDINGS:Following a review of existing literature and published guidelines on psychometric standards for COAs, we developed a 6-step, semi-automated, evidence-based assessment platform to grade COA performance for six specific purposes: diagnosis, symptom detection, prognosis, natural history, subgroup stratification and treatment effectiveness. Mandatory quality indicators (QIs) were identified for each purpose using a modified Delphi consensus-building process. The EB-COP framework was incorporated into a Qualtrics software platform and pilot-tested on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE), the most widely-used COA in TBI clinical studies.CONCLUSION:The EB-COP provides a systematic methodology for conducting more precise, evidence-based assessment of COAs by evaluating performance within specific COUs. The EB-COP platform was shown to be feasible when applied to a TBI COA frequently used to detect treatment effects and can be modified to address other populations and COUs. Additional testing and validation of the EB-COP are warranted.

To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days.Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended.No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.

We thank Drs. Gang Wang and Hai-lun Cui, Valenzuela et al., and Dr. Braillon for the comments on the recently published mild cognitive impairment (MCI) guideline.1

Objective To update the 2001 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline on mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods The guideline panel systematically reviewed MCI prevalence, prognosis, and treatment articles according to AAN evidence classification criteria, and based recommendations on evidence and modified Delphi consensus. Results MCI prevalence was 6.7% for ages 60–64, 8.4% for 65–69, 10.1% for 70–74, 14.8% for 75–79, and 25.2% for 80–84. Cumulative dementia incidence was 14.9% in individuals with MCI older than age 65 years followed for 2 years. No high-quality evidence exists to support pharmacologic treatments for MCI. In patients with MCI, exercise training (6 months) is likely to improve cognitive measures and cognitive training may improve cognitive measures. Major recommendations Clinicians should assess for MCI with validated tools in appropriate scenarios (Level B). Clinicians should evaluate patients with MCI for modifiable risk factors, assess for functional impairment, and assess for and treat behavioral/neuropsychiatric symptoms (Level B). Clinicians should monitor cognitive status of patients with MCI over time (Level B). Cognitively impairing medications should be discontinued where possible and behavioral symptoms treated (Level B). Clinicians may choose not to offer cholinesterase inhibitors (Level B); if offering, they must first discuss lack of evidence (Level A). Clinicians should recommend regular exercise (Level B). Clinicians may recommend cognitive training (Level C). Clinicians should discuss diagnosis, prognosis, long-term planning, and the lack of effective medicine options (Level B), and may discuss biomarker research with patients with MCI and families (Level C).

Objective To update the 1995 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) practice parameter on persistent vegetative state and the 2002 case definition for the minimally conscious state (MCS) by reviewing the literature on the diagnosis, natural history, prognosis, and treatment of disorders of consciousness lasting at least 28 days. Methods Articles were classified per the AAN evidence-based classification system. Evidence synthesis occurred through a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Recommendations were based on evidence, related evidence, care principles, and inferences according to the AAN 2011 process manual, as amended. Results No diagnostic assessment procedure had moderate or strong evidence for use. It is possible that a positive EMG response to command, EEG reactivity to sensory stimuli, laser-evoked potentials, and the Perturbational Complexity Index can distinguish MCS from vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS). The natural history of recovery from prolonged VS/UWS is better in traumatic than nontraumatic cases. MCS is generally associated with a better prognosis than VS (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult populations), and traumatic injury is generally associated with a better prognosis than nontraumatic injury (conclusions of low to moderate confidence in adult and pediatric populations). Findings concerning other prognostic features are stratified by etiology of injury (traumatic vs nontraumatic) and diagnosis (VS/UWS vs MCS) with low to moderate degrees of confidence. Therapeutic evidence is sparse. Amantadine probably hastens functional recovery in patients with MCS or VS/UWS secondary to severe traumatic brain injury over 4 weeks of treatment. Recommendations are presented separately.

Background Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development. Methods Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test. Results The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline. Conclusions Developers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools.

Dizziness is very common, but it is never normal. Dizziness can make performing daily activities, work, and walking difficult. Many people get dizzy when they turn their head, which can cause problems with walking and makes people more likely to fall. Most of the time dizziness is not from a life-threatening disease. Often dizziness is because of a disorder of the vestibular (or inner ear balance) system. People can get vestibular disorders from infections in the ear, problems with the immune system, medications that harm the inner ear, and rarely from diabetes or stroke because of a lack of blood flow to the inner ear. Stress, poor sleep, migraines, overdoing some activities, and feeling sad can increase symptoms. New guidelines for the treatment of vestibular disorders were published in the April 2016 issue of the Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. The guideline describes which exercises are best to treat the dizziness and balance problems commonly seen with an inner ear disorder. NEW INSIGHTS Early treatment may help people to get better faster. Treatments focus on eye and head exercises plus balance exercises to help relieve dizziness and improve the ability to walk without losing balance. A physical therapist will tailor these treatments to your specific problems on the basis of a complete examination. PRACTICAL ADVICE For people with inner ear dizziness, their dizziness may get better even without treatment. For some people, their dizziness does not get better unless they are given exercises for their dizziness and balance problems. Staying active is very important and moving your head, even if it makes you dizzy, is one of the best ways to recover from your inner ear problem. Medicine is not usually needed; however, if your dizziness is very bad, your physical therapist may work with your doctor to try to make your symptoms better with medicine so you can continue doing the exercises. On the basis of your diagnosis, your best treatment may include eye and head exercises, walking exercises, balance exercises, and education about your dizziness problem. Exercises are progressed as you improve so that you are less dizzy when you sit still and also when you move around. Physical therapists are trained to customize your exercises for best recovery. For more information about the treatment of inner ear dizziness, contact a physical therapist who specializes in inner ear problems. INNER EAR TREATMENTS Evidence suggests that early treatment of inner ear problems is helpful in decreasing dizziness. Not all inner ear problems are the same and so not everyone will do every exercise. Your physical therapist will determine which exercises will help you the most on the basis of your dizziness and/or balance concerns. Figure 1 shows an example of a common exercise that might be prescribed for dizziness and imbalance as a result of your inner ear disorder.FIGURE 1: If you lose your balance in the dark or on uneven surfaces then you might do exercises that involve standing on a foam pad with your feet in different positions.This JNPT Perspectives for Patients is based on an article by Hall CD et al, titled “Vestibular Rehabilitation for Peripheral Vestibular Hypofunction: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline” (J Neurol Phys Ther 2016) and was written by Courtney Hall, Susan Herdman, and Susan Whitney and illustrated by Maverick Dunavan.

BACKGROUND:Uncompensated vestibular hypofunction results in postural instability, visual blurring with head movement, and subjective complaints of dizziness and/or imbalance. We sought to answer the question, "Is vestibular exercise effective at enhancing recovery of function in people with peripheral (unilateral or bilateral) vestibular hypofunction?"METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was performed in 5 databases published after 1985 and 5 additional sources for relevant publications were searched. Article types included meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case control series, and case series for human subjects, published in English. One hundred thirty-five articles were identified as relevant to this clinical practice guideline.RESULTS/DISCUSSION:Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of benefit over harm, clinicians should offer vestibular rehabilitation to persons with unilateral and bilateral vestibular hypofunction with impairments and functional limitations related to the vestibular deficit. Based on strong evidence and a preponderance of harm over benefit, clinicians should not include voluntary saccadic or smooth-pursuit eye movements in isolation (ie, without head movement) as specific exercises for gaze stability. Based on moderate evidence, clinicians may offer specific exercise techniques to target identified impairments or functional limitations. Based on moderate evidence and in consideration of patient preference, clinicians may provide supervised vestibular rehabilitation. Based on expert opinion extrapolated from the evidence, clinicians may prescribe a minimum of 3 times per day for the performance of gaze stability exercises as 1 component of a home exercise program. Based on expert opinion extrapolated from the evidence (range of supervised visits: 2-38 weeks, mean = 10 weeks), clinicians may consider providing adequate supervised vestibular rehabilitation sessions for the patient to understand the goals of the program and how to manage and progress themselves independently. As a general guide, persons without significant comorbidities that affect mobility and with acute or subacute unilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week supervised sessions for 2 to 3 weeks; persons with chronic unilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week sessions for 4 to 6 weeks; and persons with bilateral vestibular hypofunction may need once a week sessions for 8 to 12 weeks. In addition to supervised sessions, patients are provided a daily home exercise program.DISCLAIMER:These recommendations are intended as a guide for physical therapists and clinicians to optimize rehabilitation outcomes for persons with peripheral vestibular hypofunction undergoing vestibular rehabilitation.Video Abstract available for more insights from the author (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A124).

Objective: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation treatments in multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We systematically searched the literature (1970–2013) and classified articles using 2004 American Academy of Neurology criteria. Results: This systematic review highlights the paucity of well-designed studies, which are needed to evaluate the available MS rehabilitative therapies. Weekly home/outpatient physical therapy (8 weeks) probably is effective for improving balance, disability, and gait (MS type unspecified, participants able to walk ≥5 meters) but probably is ineffective for improving upper extremity dexterity (1 Class I). Inpatient exercises (3 weeks) followed by home exercises (15 weeks) possibly are effective for improving disability (relapsing-remitting MS [RRMS], primary progressive MS [PPMS], secondary progressive MS [SPMS], Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 3.0–6.5) (1 Class II). Six weeks' worth of comprehensive multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation possibly is effective for improving disability/function (PPMS, SPMS, EDSS 4.0–8.0) (1 Class II). Motor and sensory balance training or motor balance training (3 weeks) possibly is effective for improving static and dynamic balance, and motor balance training (3 weeks) possibly is effective for improving static balance (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS) (1 Class II). Breathing-enhanced upper extremity exercises (6 weeks) possibly are effective for improving timed gait and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, mean EDSS 4.5); this change is of unclear clinical significance. This technique possibly is ineffective for improving disability (1 Class II). Inspiratory muscle training (10 weeks) possibly improves maximal inspiratory pressure (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, EDSS 2–6.5) (1 Class II).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness of traditional dissemination (print, e-mail, web-based) and novel dissemination (social media) on awareness of CPG and intent to change behavior as a result of CPG recommendations. BACKGROUND: Dissemination and implementation of CPGs using social media has not been evaluated. We used the CPG "Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in Multiple Sclerosis (MS)" (Neurology 2014:82; 1083) to study effectiveness of two methods of dissemination. METHODS: Study populations: MS patients and MS neurologists. Change in intent to discuss CAM (primary outcome, measured in guideline-aware respondents in both groups) and knowledge of the guideline were measured with surveys of physicians and people with MS, administered at three time points: one month before (Pre) and after publication (T, traditional dissemination); novel dissemination (N) was three months after publication with a survey one month later. RESULTS: Surveys received: Physicians: Pre: 144, T: 157, N: 138; Patients: Pre: 76, T: 79, N: 80. Traditional dissemination increased awareness in physicians (change: 42[percnt]; 95[percnt] CI: 30-52[percnt]) and patients (10[percnt]; CI: 2-19[percnt]). After novel dissemination, awareness of the CPG remained higher than pre-dissemination (physicians 29[percnt]; CI:17.4-39.4[percnt]; patients 6[percnt]; CI:-0.8- 14.2), awareness dropped insignificantly compared to traditional dissemination (physicians: -13.1[percnt]; CI: -24.4-0.9[percnt]; patients: -3.9[percnt] CI: -13.6-5.6[percnt]).Traditional dissemination increased intent to discuss CAM (physicians: 12.3[percnt]; CI: 2.3-22.1[percnt], patients: 19[percnt]; CI: 3.4-33[percnt]). After novel dissemination, intent returned to baseline in physicians; intent continued to be high in patients (but dropped insignificantly compared to traditional (-8[percnt], CI:-7.5-22.3[percnt]). Knowledge increased in physicians (RD 35[percnt], CI 23.6- 44.6[percnt]) but not in patients (RD 2.3[percnt], CI -8.4-13.4[percnt]). Behavior did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Somewhat surprisingly, traditional and social media dissemination methods were equally successful in increasing awareness of the CPG and changing intent to discuss CAM in both physicians and patients. Whether CPGs change behavior or outcomes requires study. Supported by: AHRQ R18HS022004-01

Objective:To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation treatments in multiple sclerosis (MS).Methods:We systematically searched the literature (1970-2013) and classified articles using 2004 American Academy of Neurology criteria.Results:This systematic review highlights the paucity of well-designed studies, which are needed to evaluate the available MS rehabilitative therapies. Weekly home/outpatient physical therapy (8 weeks) probably is effective for improving balance, disability, and gait (MS type unspecified, participants able to walk 5 meters) but probably is ineffective for improving upper extremity dexterity (1 Class I). Inpatient exercises (3 weeks) followed by home exercises (15 weeks) possibly are effective for improving disability (relapsing-remitting MS [RRMS], primary progressive MS [PPMS], secondary progressive MS [SPMS], Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 3.0-6.5) (1 Class II). Six weeks' worth of comprehensive multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation possibly is effective for improving disability/function (PPMS, SPMS, EDSS 4.0-8.0) (1 Class II). Motor and sensory balance training or motor balance training (3 weeks) possibly is effective for improving static and dynamic balance, and motor balance training (3 weeks) possibly is effective for improving static balance (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS) (1 Class II). Breathing-enhanced upper extremity exercises (6 weeks) possibly are effective for improving timed gait and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, mean EDSS 4.5); this change is of unclear clinical significance. This technique possibly is ineffective for improving disability (1 Class II). Inspiratory muscle training (10 weeks) possibly improves maximal inspiratory pressure (RRMS, SPMS, PPMS, EDSS 2-6.5) (1 Class II).

There are many factors driving health care reform, including unsustainable costs, poor outcomes, an aging populace, and physician shortages. These issues are particularly relevant to neurology. New reimbursement models are based on value and facilitated by the use of multidisciplinary teams. Integration of advanced practice providers (APPs) into neurology practice offers many advantages with new models of care. Conversely, there are many and varied challenges financially and logistically with these practice models. The American Academy of Neurology has formed a Work Group to address the needs of both neurologists and neurologic APPs and monitor the effect of APPs on quality and cost of neurologic care.

BACKGROUND:Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that provide recommendations to optimize patient care for a specific clinical problem or question. Merely reading a guideline rarely leads to implementation of recommendations. The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has a formal process of guideline development and dissemination. The last few years have seen a burgeoning of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and newer methods of dissemination such as podcasts and webinars. The role of these media in guideline dissemination has not been studied. Systematic evaluation of dissemination methods and comparison of the effectiveness of newer methods with traditional methods is not available. It is also not known whether specific dissemination methods may be more effectively targeted to specific audiences.OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to (1) develop an innovative dissemination strategy by adding social media-based dissemination methods to traditional methods for the AAN clinical practice guidelines "Complementary and alternative medicine in multiple sclerosis" ("CAM in MS") and (2) evaluate whether the addition of social media outreach improves awareness of the CPG and knowledge of CPG recommendations, and affects implementation of those recommendations.METHODS:Outcomes were measured by four surveys in each of the two target populations: patients and physicians/clinicians ("physicians"). The primary outcome was the difference in participants' intent to discuss use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with their physicians or patients, respectively, after novel dissemination, as compared with that after traditional dissemination. Secondary outcomes were changes in awareness of the CPG, knowledge of CPG content, and behavior regarding CAM use in multiple sclerosis (MS).RESULTS:Response rates were 25.08% (622/2480) for physicians and 43.5% (348/800) for patients. Awareness of the CPG increased after traditional dissemination (absolute difference, 95% confidence interval: physicians 36%, 95% CI 25-46, and patients 10%, 95% CI 1-11) but did not increase further after novel dissemination (physicians 0%, 95% CI -11 to 11, and patients -4%, 95% CI -6 to 14). Intent to discuss CAM also increased after traditional dissemination but did not change after novel dissemination (traditional: physicians 12%, 95% CI 2-22, and patients 19%, 95% CI 3-33; novel: physicians 11%, 95% CI -1 to -21, and patients -8%, 95% CI -22 to 8). Knowledge of CPG recommendations and behavior regarding CAM use in MS did not change after either traditional dissemination or novel dissemination.CONCLUSIONS:Social media-based dissemination methods did not confer additional benefit over print-, email-, and Internet-based methods in increasing CPG awareness and changing intent in physicians or patients. Research on audience selection, message formatting, and message delivery is required to utilize Web 2.0 technologies optimally for dissemination.