Multimorbidity-the coexistence of at least two chronic health conditions within the same individual-is an important global health challenge. In high-income countries (HICs), multimorbidity is dominated by non-communicable diseases (NCDs); whereas, the situation may be different in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where chronic communicable diseases remain prominent. The aim of this systematic review was to identify determinants (including risk and protective factors) and potential mechanisms underlying multimorbidity from published longitudinal studies across diverse population-based or community-dwelling populations in LMICs. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Global Health) using pre-defined search terms and selection criteria, complemented by hand-searching. All titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers from a pool of four researchers. Data extraction and reporting were according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Methodological quality and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Data were summarized using narrative synthesis. The search yielded 1782 records. Of the 52 full-text articles included for review, 8 longitudinal population-based studies were included for final data synthesis. Almost all studies were conducted in Asia, with only one from South America and none from Africa. All studies were published in the last decade, with half published in the year 2021. The definitions used for multimorbidity were heterogeneous, including 3-16 chronic conditions per study. The leading chronic conditions were heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, and there was a lack of consideration of mental health conditions (MHCs), infectious diseases, and undernutrition. Prospectively evaluated determinants included socio-economic status, markers of social inequities, childhood adversity, lifestyle behaviors, obesity, dyslipidemia, and disability. This review revealed a paucity of evidence from LMICs and a geographical bias in the distribution of multimorbidity research. Longitudinal research into epidemiological aspects of multimorbidity is warranted to build up scientific evidence in regions beyond Asia. Such evidence can provide a detailed picture of disease development, with important implications for community, clinical, and interventions in LMICs. The heterogeneity in study designs, exposures, outcomes, and statistical methods observed in the present review calls for greater methodological standardisation while conducting epidemiological studies on multimorbidity. The limited evidence for MHCs, infectious diseases, and undernutrition as components of multimorbidity calls for a more comprehensive definition of multimorbidity globally.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide 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.