Purpose - To develop an evidence-based, standardized structured reporting (SR) method for brain MRI examinations in neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) suitable both for clinical and research use. Materials and methods - SR template development was based on comprehensive review of the pertinent literature with the basic sections and subdivisions of the template defined according to MRI sequences (both conventional and diffusion-weighted, MR-spectroscopy (MRS), and T2*-weighted imaging), and the items targeted on age-related imaging patterns of HIE. In order to evaluate the usability of the proposed SR template we compared data obtained from the brain MR image analysis of 87 term and 19 preterm neonates with the literature. The enrolled 106 infants were born between 2013 and 2015, went through therapeutic hypothermia according to the TOBY criteria due to moderate to severe asphyxia and had at least one brain MRI examination within the first two weeks of life. Ethical approval was obtained for this retrospective study. Descriptive statistical analysis was also performed on data exported from the structured reporting system as feasibility test. Results - The mean gestational age of the study population was 38.3±2.2 weeks; brain MRI was performed on 5.8±2.9 day of life, hence in 78% of our patients after the conclusion of therapeutic hypothermia. Our main imaging findings were concordant to the pertinent literature. Moreover, we identified a characteristic temporal evolution of diffusion changes. Interestingly 18% (n=19/106) of the clinically asphyxiated infants had isolated axial-extraaxial haemorrhage without any imaging sign of HIE. Conclusion - In this article our approach of reporting HIE cases with our novel SR template is described. The SR template was found suitable for reporting HIE cases, moreover it uncovered time and location dependent evolution of diffusion abnormalities (and pseudonormalization, as well), suggesting its usefulness in clinical research applications. The high number of isolated intracranial haemorrhages, and the changing diffusion pattern emphasizes the importance of early imaging in HIE.

[Background – Based on the literature and his long-term clinical practice the author stresses the main collisions of evidence and experience based medicine in the care of people with epilepsy. Purpose – To see, what are the professional decisions of high responsibility in the epilepsy-care, in whose the relevant clinical research is still lacking or does not give a satisfactory basis. Methods – Following the structure of the Hungarian Guideline the author points the critical situations and decisions. He explains also the causes of the dilemmas: the lack or uncertainty of evidences or the difficulty of scientific investigation of the situation. Results – There are some priorities of experience based medicine in the following areas: definition of epilepsy, classification of seizures, etiology – including genetic background –, role of precipitating and provoking factors. These are able to influence the complex diagnosis. In the pharmacotherapy the choice of the first drug and the optimal algorithm as well as the tasks during the care are also depends on personal experiences sometimes contradictory to the official recommendations. Same can occur in the choice of the non-pharmacological treatments and rehabilitation. Discussion and conclusion – Personal professional experiences (and interests of patients) must be obligatory accessories of evidence based attitude, but for achieving the optimal results, in some situations they replace the official recommendations. Therefore it is very important that the problematic patients do meet experts having necessary experiences and also professional responsibility to help in these decisions. ]

[Report of the ad hoc Committee appointed by the Scientific Council and the Scientific Committee on Research Ethics in Health; The ad hoc Committee appointed by the Scientific Council and the Scientific Committee on Research Ethics in Health has prepared two versions of its position papers. One version summarised the committee's position after more detailed explanations and a list of arguments and counter-arguments (this material was published in the Medical Journal 10-13 1992 in a continuation form). The other, abridged version only lists the final conclusions of the committee according to the individual topics. The latter has been discussed and adopted by the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee and approved by the Bureau of the Scientific Council for Health, and is now published as the final resolution on the issue. ]