Browsing by Subject "Delphi process"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Developing classification criteria for skin-predominant dermatomyositis: the Delphi process
    (Wiley, 2020-02) Concha, J. S. S.; Pena, S.; Gaffney, R. G.; Patel, B.; Tarazi, M.; Kushner, C. J.; Merola, J. F.; Fiorentino, D.; Dutz, J. P.; Goodfield, M.; Nyberg, F.; Volc-Platzer, B.; Fujimoto, M.; Ang, C. C.; Werth, V. P.; The Skin Myositis Delphi Group; Dermatology, School of Medicine
    Background The European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for inflammatory myopathies are able to classify patients with skin-predominant dermatomyositis (DM). However, approximately 25% of patients with skin-predominant DM do not meet two of the three hallmark skin signs and fail to meet the criteria. Objectives To develop a set of skin-focused classification criteria that will distinguish cutaneous DM from mimickers and allow a more inclusive definition of skin-predominant disease. Methods An extensive literature review was done to generate items for the Delphi process. Items were grouped into categories of distribution, morphology, symptoms, antibodies, histology and contextual factors. Using REDCap™, participants rated these items in terms of appropriateness and distinguishing ability from mimickers. The relevance score ranged from 1 to 100, and the median score determined a rank-ordered list. A prespecified median score cut-off was decided by the steering committee and the participants. There was a pre-Delphi and two rounds of actual Delphi. Results There were 50 participating dermatologists and rheumatologists from North America, South America, Europe and Asia. After a cut-off score of 70 during the first round, 37 of the initial 54 items were retained and carried over to the next round. The cut-off was raised to 80 during round two and a list of 25 items was generated. Conclusions This project is a key step in the development of prospectively validated classification criteria that will create a more inclusive population of patients with DM for clinical research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development of ASMBS Research Agenda for Bariatric Surgery Using the Delphi Methodology
    (Elsevier, 2019) Stefanidis, Dimitrios; King, Wendy C.; Puzziferri, Nancy; Butler, Annabelle R.; Hutter, Matthew; Sudan, Ranjan; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background While the number of research publications related to bariatric surgery have increased remarkably in the past decade, research efforts remain uncoordinated and have limited focus, and numerous important questions remain unanswered. Objective To generate a research agenda in bariatric surgery. Setting National survey. Methods The membership of the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) was asked to submit research questions needed to advance the field of bariatric surgery. An expert panel grouped and collated submitted questions and redistributed them back to the membership to rate their importance on a 5-point Likert scale using a 3-round modified Delphi methodology. The top research questions were determined based on provided rankings. Results Two hundred ninety-two research questions were initially submitted that were collapsed to 59 unique questions. The ratings for the top 40 questions ranged from 2.67–4.33 (overall mean, 3.46). The highest-ranked questions centered on the mechanisms of effectiveness of bariatric surgery for weight loss and diabetes resolution, the underlying etiology of weight recidivism, and predictors of success. Conclusions A research agenda for bariatric surgery was developed using the Delphi methodology. This research agenda may enhance the ability of investigators and funding organizations, including the ASMBS, to focus attention to areas most likely to advance the field, and by editors and reviewers to assess the merit and relevance of scientific contributions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Essential Components of Physical Therapist Management of Patients With Osteoporosis: A Delphi Study
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2022-04) Avin, Keith G.; Nithman, Robert W.; Osborne, Raine; Betz, Sherri R.; Lindsey, Carleen; Hartley, Gregory W.; Physical Therapy, School of Health and Human Sciences
    Background and Purpose: Osteoporosis is a systemic, metabolic bone disease that affects bone quality, increases susceptibility to low-trauma bone fracture, and has downstream effects on falls and fragility fractures. Osteoporosis is a multifactorial disease process that requires management from multiple health care providers including physicians, nurses, and physical therapists. However, the paucity of information regarding comprehensive physical therapist management for patients with osteoporosis indicated the need for an evidence-based document. The purpose of this document was to provide the best available expert guidance for clinicians in the selection of screening tools, essential tests and measures, treatment goals, and interventions for patients with osteoporosis. Methods: A Delphi process was used. Thirty-one physical therapists with expertise in the care of patients with osteoporosis participated in a series of 3 sequential surveys designed to build and reach agreement on the management of patients with osteoporosis. The desired survey outcomes were to: (1) identify the range of examination and plan of care components considered important to physical therapists' care for patients with osteoporosis, (2) determine which components should be considered essential, and (3) achieve consensus on the final list of essential components and related operational definitions. Results: A clear consensus on the essential components of examination and interventions was achieved. In general, there were 4 to 6 items across each category of history, tests and measures, education/goals, and treatment. Conclusions: The prioritization of these management items will better support clinicians working with adults who have osteoporosis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Priority setting for the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group review updates: a Delphi process
    (Elsevier, 2020) Kumar, Nimisha; Grant, Sean; Haas, David M.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    When and How To Use Endoscopic Tattooing in the Colon: An International Delphi Agreement
    (Elsevier, 2021) Medina-Prado, Lucía; Hassan, Cesare; Dekker, Evelien; Bisschops, Raf; Alfieri, Sergio; Bhandari, Pradeep; Bourke, Michael J.; Bravo, Raquel; Bustamante-Balen, Marco; Dominitz, Jason; Ferlitsch, Monika; Fockens, Paul; van Leerdam, Monique; Lieberman, David; Herráiz, Maite; Kahi, Charles; Kaminski, Michal; Matsuda, Takahisa; Moss, Alan; Pellisé, Maria; Pohl, Heiko; Rees, Colin; Rex, Douglas K.; Romero-Simó, Manuel; Rutter, Matthew D.; Sharma, Prateek; Shaukat, Aasma; Thomas-Gibson, Siwan; Valori, Roland; Jover, Rodrigo; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. Methods The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. Results A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). Conclusions This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.