Career Center AES Connect
add_box Find a Doctor
source Create Account
account_box Join AES 
mail Contact Us 
computer My eLearning
shopping_cart Shopping Cart

Submit a Topic for AES Clinical Guidance

Want to shape the future of epilepsy care? The American Epilepsy Society (AES) invites you to propose topics for our influential clinical guidance documents. Your expertise can translate into improved patient outcomes and cutting-edge practices. Explore the guidelines below and submit your impactful idea today!

Submit Now

 

AES is dedicated to advancing epilepsy care by providing high-quality, evidence-informed guidance for clinicians and researchers. The CCA develops Clinical Practice Guidelines, expert consensus statements, position statements, and topic reviews to support the enhancement of patient care.

Anyone can propose a clinical guidance topic for consideration by the AES CCA, whether or not you're an AES member. To submit a topic, complete the form, and if you need assistance, please contact Clinical@aesnet.org.

The CCA reviews all nominations annually in October or November to determine which projects will move forward, and AES staff will follow up with submitters after the review process.

 

Key Considerations for Topic Submissions

Search Icon

Evidence-Based vs. Opinion-Based

Some areas of epilepsy care lack high-quality evidence, yet guidance is still necessary. AES ensures that documents based primarily on expert opinion are clearly distinguished from those grounded in scientific literature.

Checklist Icon

Resource Considerations

Developing Clinical Practice Guidelines requires significant resources, including systematic reviews, statistical analysis, and expert consensus. In contrast, less resource-intensive documents (e.g., member polls or topic reviews) provide valuable insights with quicker turnaround times. 

Verify Icon

Methodological Rigor

All documents must be systematic, rigorous, logical, and reproducible to maintain credibility and utility. AES ensures transparency by documenting search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, expert selection processes and conflict of interest disclosures. 

Types of Clinical Guidance Documents

/
arrow_drop_down
Clinical Practice Guidelines arrow_drop_down

Development:

  • Developed using systematic literature reviews and the GRADE method for evidence classification and are structured with 4-8 PICO(TS) elements (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, time frame, setting). 
  • Require a methodologist and librarian in addition to a work group and should be completed in three years. 

Purpose:

  • Provide evidence-based recommendations to optimize patient care. 
  • Address disease management issues with significant practice variability and sufficient scientific evidence for optimal treatment. 
Expert Consensus Statements arrow_drop_down

Development:

  • Based on consensus among experienced practitioners, complement empirical evidence, and are developed using structured methods like Delphi or Nominal Group Technique for expert agreement. 
  • Require a methodologist and librarian in addition to work group, and should be completed in one year.

Purpose:

  • Used when limited or no published scientific literature exists on a topic. 
  • Bridge emerging clinical issues and future evidence-based guidelines. 
Position Statements arrow_drop_down

Development:

  • Based on a mix of scientific evidence, expert consensus, and AES’s core values. 
  • May require a librarian and should be completed in six months. 

Purpose:

  • Outline AES’s official stance on medical, ethical, or policy-related issues.
  • Inform policymaking, clarify complex topics, and provide clinical guidance.

 

Topic Reviews arrow_drop_down

Development:

  • Systematic, rigorous, logical, and reproducible. They use and document clear, prespecified search criteria for peer-reviewed literature and clearly differentiate between evidence-based statements and expert opinions. 
  • Require a librarian and should be completed in one year. 

Purpose:

  • Provide structured, focused overviews of specific epilepsy-related issues. 
  • Offer practical insights into specific drugs, treatments, or management strategies. 

 

Member Poll Summaries arrow_drop_down

Development:

  • Based on opinions and not evidence. If they are created with the intention of publishing data, the workgroup will be responsible for obtaining Institutional Review Board approval. 
  • Most will be completed in six months. 

Purpose:

  • Capture the opinions and clinical practices of AES members on relevant topics and to understand real-world variations in epilepsy care. 
  • Helpful during a health care crisis or health care change where it is useful to quickly gather information. 

The Submission Process

Topic Submission & Approval: Propose topics utilizing the topic submission form which are then reviewed and approved by relevant AES Committees/Council and the AES Board. 

Work Group Formation: The AES committees assembles expert panels, manages conflicts of interest, and makes final decisions on writing group membership, considering but not guaranteeing suggested members. 

Methodologist, PICOs, and Protocol Development: If necessary.

Literature Review & Analysis: Various review methods (systematic reviews, meta-analyses, expert consensus) will begin in collaboration with a librarian, if necessary. This will depend on the document type established. 

Drafting & Review: Documents undergo committee evaluation, Council review, Board approval, and some may have a public comment period. 

Final Approval & Publication: Approved documents may be published in Epilepsy Currents or shared with members on the AES website.

 

Ready to make a difference in epilepsy care?

Submit your topic idea now and help shape the future of AES clinical guidance.

Submit a Topic