Delphi procedure
Dotaz
Zobrazit nápovědu
IMPORTANCE: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare but potentially fatal drug hypersensitivity reaction. To our knowledge, there is no international consensus on its severity assessment and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To reach an international, Delphi-based multinational expert consensus on the diagnostic workup, severity assessment, and treatment of patients with DRESS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Delphi method was used to assess 100 statements related to baseline workup, evaluation of severity, acute phase, and postacute management of DRESS. Fifty-seven international experts in DRESS were invited, and 54 participated in the survey, which took place from July to September 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES/MEASURES: The degree of agreement was calculated with the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Consensus was defined as a statement with a median appropriateness value of 7 or higher (appropriate) and a disagreement index of lower than 1. RESULTS: In the first Delphi round, consensus was reached on 82 statements. Thirteen statements were revised and assessed in a second round. A consensus was reached for 93 statements overall. The experts agreed on a set of basic diagnostic workup procedures as well as severity- and organ-specific further investigations. They reached a consensus on severity assessment (mild, moderate, and severe) based on the extent of liver, kidney, and blood involvement and the damage of other organs. The panel agreed on the main lines of DRESS management according to these severity grades. General recommendations were generated on the postacute phase follow-up of patients with DRESS and the allergological workup. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This Delphi exercise represents, to our knowledge, the first international expert consensus on diagnostic workup, severity assessment, and management of DRESS. This should support clinicians in the diagnosis and management of DRESS and constitute the basis for development of future guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disorder. Several new treatment concepts have emerged in recent years, but access to these treatments varies due to differing national reimbursement regulations, leading to disparities across Europe. This highlights the need for high-quality data collection by stakeholders to establish MG registries. A European MG registry could help bridge the treatment access gap across different countries, offering critical data to support regulatory decisions, foster international collaborations, and enhance clinical and epidemiological research. Several national MG registries already exist or are in development. To avoid duplication and ensure harmonization in data collection, a modified Delphi procedure was implemented to identify essential data elements for inclusion in national registries. RESULTS: Following a literature review, consultations with patient associations and pharmaceutical companies, and input from multiple European MG experts, 100 data elements were identified. Of these, 62 reached consensus for inclusion and classification, while only 1 item was agreed for exclusion. 30 items failed to reach the ≥ 80% agreement threshold and were excluded. Among the 62 accepted items, 21 were classified as mandatory data elements, 32 optional, and 9 items pertained to the informed consent form. CONCLUSIONS: Through a modified Delphi procedure, consensus was successfully achieved. This consensus-based approach represents a crucial step toward harmonizing MG registries across Europe. The resulting dataset will facilitate the sharing of knowledge and enhance European collaborations. Furthermore, the harmonized data may assist in regulatory or reimbursement decisions regarding novel therapies, as well as address treatment access disparities between European countries.
- MeSH
- delfská metoda * MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- myasthenia gravis * terapie diagnóza MeSH
- registrace * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa MeSH
BACKGROUND: Abdominal wall hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide, yet despite this, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to support best management. The aim of the study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine future research priorities in this field. METHODS: Stakeholders were invited by email, using British Hernia Society membership details or Twitter, to submit individual research questions via an online survey. In addition, questions obtained from a patient focus group (PFG) were collated to form Phase I. Two rounds of prioritization by stakeholders (phases II and III) were then completed to determine a final list of research questions. All questions were analyzed on an anonymized basis. RESULTS: A total of 266 questions, 19 from the PFG, were submitted by 113 stakeholders in Phase I. Of these, 64 questions were taken forward for prioritization in Phase II, which was completed by 107 stakeholders. Following Phase II analysis, 97 stakeholders prioritized 36 questions in Phase III. This resulted in a final list of 14 research questions, 3 of which were from the PFG. Stakeholders included patients and healthcare professionals (consultant surgeons, trainee surgeons and other multidisciplinary members) from over 27 countries during the 3 phases. CONCLUSION: The study has identified 14 key research priorities pertaining to abdominal wall hernia surgery. Uniquely, these priorities have been determined from participation by both healthcare professionals and patients. These priorities should now be addressed by well-designed, high-quality international collaborative research.
- MeSH
- abdominální hernie * MeSH
- biomedicínský výzkum * MeSH
- chirurgie trávicího traktu * MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- operace kýly MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Increasing infectious rate estimates and low microbiological surveillance affect safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy globally. Single use endoscopes and accessories have been claimed to improve safety, but there is lack of data on their indication and sustainability. We aimed to identify a series of best practice recommendations for the use of single use endoscopes and accessories using a modified Delphi. METHODS/DESIGN: Consensus statements for the use of single use endoscopy and accessories were developed using a modified Delphi process, utilizing an international endoscopist expert panel of 62 experts from 33 nations. The main steps in the process were selecting the consensus group, conducting systematic literature reviews, developing statements, and anonymous voting on the statements until consensus was reached. High-risk patients were defined as those with multi-drug-resistant infections, immunosuppressive medication or chemotherapy, post-transplantation, or with severe neutropenia. RESULTS: Of the 26 statements that were voted upon through two rounds, 17 statements reached consensus. Category 1: single use accessories (8 statements), related to defining recommendations for the use of single use accessories in all patient populations or high-risk patients. Category 2: clinical indication for single use endoscopes (9 statements), including indications to high-risk patients, protecting the endoscope apparatus and contamination measures in endoscopy units. Category 3: technical factors (4 statements), related to superior performance and technical specifications with the new innovation. Category 4: environmental issues (2 statements), concerning mechanisms that reduce the detrimental burden to the environment. Category 5: financial implications (3 statements), related to healthcare policies, cost neutrality and other financial associations of single use endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international initiative in determining clinical indications for single use endoscopy and accessories. The study's findings should serve as a framework for future physicians to guide future research and aid the proper evidence-based indications for the implementation of single use endoscopes in clinical practice.
- MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- gastrointestinální endoskopie * MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Global obesity rates have risen dramatically, now exceeding deaths from starvation. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), initially for severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m2), is performed globally over 500 000 times annually, offering significant metabolic benefits beyond weight loss. However, varying eligibility criteria globally impact patient care and healthcare resources. Updated in 2022, ASMBS and IFSO guidelines aim to standardise MBS indications, reflecting current understanding and emphasising comprehensive preoperative assessments. Yet, clinical variability persists, necessitating consensus-based recommendations. This modified Delphi study engaged 45 global experts to establish consensus on perioperative management in MBS. Experts selected from bariatric societies possessed expertise in MBS and participated in a two-round Delphi protocol. Consensus was achieved on 90 of 169 statements (53.3%), encompassing multidisciplinary team composition, patient selection criteria, preoperative testing, and referral pathways. The agreement highlighted the critical role of comprehensive preoperative assessments and the integration of healthcare professionals in MBS. These findings offer essential insights to standardise perioperative practices and advocate for evidence-based guidelines in MBS globally. The study underscores the need for unified protocols to optimise outcomes and guide future research in MBS.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. METHODS: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. RESULTS: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). CONCLUSIONS: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.
INTRODUCTION: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide. Yet there is significant variation in practice concerning its various aspects. This paper report results from the first modified Delphi consensus-building exercise on SG. METHODS: We established a committee of 54 globally recognized opinion makers in this field. The committee agreed to vote on several statements concerning SG. An agreement or disagreement amongst ≥ 70.0% experts was construed as a consensus. RESULTS: The committee achieved a consensus of agreement (n = 71) or disagreement (n = 7) for 78 out of 97 proposed statements after two rounds of voting. The committee agreed with 96.3% consensus that the characterization of SG as a purely restrictive procedure was inaccurate and there was 88.7% consensus that SG was not a suitable standalone, primary, surgical weight loss option for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) without dysplasia. There was an overwhelming consensus of 92.5% that the sleeve should be fashioned over an orogastric tube of 36-40 Fr and a 90.7% consensus that surgeons should stay at least 1 cm away from the angle of His. Remarkably, the committee agreed with 81.1% consensus that SG patients should undergo a screening endoscopy every 5 years after surgery to screen for BE. CONCLUSION: A multinational team of experts achieved consensus on several aspects of SG. The findings of this exercise should help improve the outcomes of SG, the commonest bariatric procedure worldwide, and guide future research on this topic.
- MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- gastrektomie MeSH
- hmotnostní úbytek MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- morbidní obezita * chirurgie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- žaludeční bypass * MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Face transplantation is a viable reconstructive approach for severe craniofacial defects. Despite the evolution witnessed in the field, ethical aspects, clinical and psychosocial implications, public perception, and economic sustainability remain the subject of debate and unanswered questions. Furthermore, poor data reporting and sharing, the absence of standardized metrics for outcome evaluation, and the lack of consensus definitions of success and failure have hampered the development of a "transplantation culture" on a global scale. We completed a 2-round online modified Delphi process with 35 international face transplant stakeholders, including surgeons, clinicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, ethicists, policymakers, and researchers, with a representation of 10 of the 19 face transplant teams that had already performed the procedure and 73% of face transplants. Themes addressed included patient assessment and selection, indications, social support networks, clinical framework, surgical considerations, data on patient progress and outcomes, definitions of success and failure, public image and perception, and financial sustainability. The presented recommendations are the product of a shared commitment of face transplant teams to foster the development of face transplantation and are aimed at providing a gold standard of practice and policy.
- MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- transplantace obličeje * metody MeSH
- vaskularizovaná kompozitní alotransplantace * MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Face transplantation is a viable reconstructive approach for severe craniofacial defects. Despite the evolution witnessed in the field, ethical aspects, clinical and psychosocial implications, public perception, and economic sustainability remain the subject of debate and unanswered questions. Furthermore, poor data reporting and sharing, the absence of standardized metrics for outcome evaluation, and the lack of consensus definitions of success and failure have hampered the development of a "transplantation culture" on a global scale. We completed a 2-round online modified Delphi process with 35 international face transplant stakeholders, including surgeons, clinicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, ethicists, policymakers, and researchers, with a representation of 10 of the 19 face transplant teams that had already performed the procedure and 73% of face transplants. Themes addressed included patient assessment and selection, indications, social support networks, clinical framework, surgical considerations, data on patient progress and outcomes, definitions of success and failure, public image and perception, and financial sustainability. The presented recommendations are the product of a shared commitment of face transplant teams to foster the development of face transplantation and are aimed at providing a gold standard of practice and policy.
- MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- transplantace obličeje * metody MeSH
- vaskularizovaná kompozitní alotransplantace * MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
BACKGROUND: The SIOP-Renal Tumor Study Group (RTSG) does not advocate invasive procedures to determine histology before the start of therapy. This may induce misdiagnosis-based treatment initiation, but only for a relatively small percentage of approximately 10% of non-Wilms tumors (non-WTs). MRI could be useful for reducing misdiagnosis, but there is no global consensus on differentiating characteristics. PURPOSE: To identify MRI characteristics that may be used for discrimination of newly diagnosed pediatric renal tumors. STUDY TYPE: Consensus process using a Delphi method. POPULATION: Not applicable. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Abdominal MRI including T1- and T2-weighted imaging, contrast-enhanced MRI, and diffusion-weighted imaging at 1.5 or 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Twenty-three radiologists from the SIOP-RTSG radiology panel with ≥5 years of experience in MRI of pediatric renal tumors and/or who had assessed ≥50 MRI scans of pediatric renal tumors in the past 5 years identified potentially discriminatory characteristics in the first questionnaire. These characteristics were scored in the subsequent second round, consisting of 5-point Likert scales, ranking- and multiple choice questions. STATISTICAL TESTS: The cut-off value for consensus and agreement among the majority was ≥75% and ≥60%, respectively, with a median of ≥4 on the Likert scale. RESULTS: Consensus on specific characteristics mainly concerned the discrimination between WTs and non-WTs, and WTs and nephrogenic rest(s) (NR)/nephroblastomatosis. The presence of bilateral lesions (75.0%) and NR/nephroblastomatosis (65.0%) were MRI characteristics indicated as specific for the diagnosis of a WT, and 91.3% of the participants agreed that MRI is useful to distinguish NR/nephroblastomatosis from WT. Furthermore, all participants agreed that age influenced their prediction in the discrimination of pediatric renal tumors. DATA CONCLUSION: Although the discrimination of pediatric renal tumors based on MRI remains challenging, this study identified some specific characteristics for tumor subtypes, based on the shared opinion of experts. These results may guide future validation studies and innovative efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy Stage: 3.
