AIM: To develop an international taxonomy of standardized terms and activity definitions related to medication reviews.
METHOD: This was a three-stage Delphi-based consensus study with international medication review experts. A systematic review provided MR activity terms for the survey. Experts rated their consensus on each activity term and its definition on a Likert scale and provided written feedback. The consensus was 75% panel agreement. At each stage, consensus elements were retained, and feedback was used to revise definitions.
RESULTS: Seven experts were recruited for the study (response rate 15.2%) from four countries: the United Kingdom (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). The following terms achieved consensus: the term Medication as a descriptor for MR terms; discontinue medication, start medication, dose increase, dose decrease, dosage form change, and medication safety and efficacy monitor to describe MR activity; Educate to describe the delivery of healthcare professionals and patients/carers education.
CONCLUSION: Standardized medication review activity terms and definitions have been selected for universal adoption in all future MR research to facilitate a meaningful comparison of process evaluations within different settings.
METHODS: The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.
METHODS: The registry was developed in an iterative consensus-based manner by a panel of neurotrauma professionals. Proposed registry objectives, structure, and data points were established in 2 international multidisciplinary neurotrauma meetings, after which a survey consisting of the same data points was circulated within the global neurotrauma community. The survey results were disseminated in a final meeting to reach a consensus on the most pertinent registry variables.
RESULTS: A total of 156 professionals from 53 countries, including both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, responded to the survey. The final consensus-based registry includes patients with TBI who required neurosurgical admission, a neurosurgical procedure, or a critical care admission. The data set comprised clinically pertinent information on demographics, injury characteristics, imaging, treatments, and short-term outcomes. Based on the consensus, the Global Epidemiology and Outcomes following Traumatic Brain Injury (GEO-TBI) registry was established.
CONCLUSION: The GEO-TBI registry will enable high-quality data collection, clinical auditing, and research activity, and it is supported by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and the National Institute of Health Research Global Health Program. The GEO-TBI registry ( https://geotbi.org ) is now open for participant site recruitment. Any center involved in TBI management is welcome to join the collaboration to access the registry.
OBJECTIVES: This paper presents consensus work conducted with an international group of expert stroke recovery and rehabilitation researchers, clinicians, and people living with stroke to identify and define criteria and measurable indicators for Centers of Clinical Excellence (CoCE) in stroke recovery and rehabilitation. These were intentionally developed to be ambitious and internationally relevant, regardless of a country's development or income status, to drive global improvement in stroke services.
METHODS: Criteria and specific measurable indicators for CoCE were collaboratively developed by an international panel of stroke recovery and rehabilitation experts from 10 countries and consumer groups from 5 countries.
RESULTS: The criteria and associated indicators, ranked in order of importance, focused upon (i) optimal outcome, (ii) research culture, (iii) working collaboratively with people living with stroke, (iv) knowledge exchange, (v) leadership, (vi) education, and (vii) advocacy. Work is currently underway to user-test the criteria and indicators in 14 rehabilitation centers in 10 different countries.
CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that use of the criteria and indicators could support individual organizations to further develop their services and, more widely, provide a mechanism by which clinical excellence can be articulated and shared to generate global improvements in stroke care.
METHODS: This was a systematic review that was carried out using MeSH terminology in our search protocol in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science database between 1976 and 29th of Jan 2023. All studies that were included in this review had applied fully/partially the SRS inclusion criteria for brace wear. Outcome measures were divided into primary and secondary outcome measures.
RESULTS: 3830 literatures were found in which 176 literatures were deemed relevant to the study once duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts were screened. Of these literatures, only 15 had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. 8 of the studies were Level IV studies, 5 were Level III studies and 2 studies were Level I studies (1 prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) and 1 Quasi-RCT). The percentage of patients who avoided surgery for European braces ranged from 88 to 100%, whereas for Boston brace ranged from 70 to 94%. When treatment success was assessed based on the final Cobb angle > 45°, approximately 15% of patients treated with European braces had treatment failure. In contrast, 20-63% of patients treated with Boston brace had curves > 45° at skeletal maturity. The BrAIST study used a cut-off point of 50° to define failure of treatment and the rate of treatment failure was 28%. Curve correction was not achieved in most patients (24-51% of patients) who were treated with the Chêneau brace and its derivatives. However, none of the patients treated with Boston brace achieved curve correction.
CONCLUSION: Boston brace and European braces were effective in the prevention of surgery. In addition, curve stabilisation was achieved in most studies. Limitation in current literature included lack of studies providing high level of evidence and lack of standardisation in terms of compliance to brace as well as multidisciplinary management of brace wear.
METHODS: Medline via PubMed platform, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined CRC FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study.
RESULTS: Out of 819 papers identified through an online search, only 15 papers were included in this review. The majority (n = 12, 80%) were from high-income countries, and none from low-income countries. Few studies (n = 2) reported objective FT denoted by the prevalence of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE), 60% (9 out of 15) reported prevalence of subjective FT, which ranges from 7 to 80%, 40% (6 out of 15) included studies reported cost of CRC management- annual direct medical cost ranges from USD 2045 to 10,772 and indirect medical cost ranges from USD 551 to 795.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus in defining and quantifying financial toxicity hindered the comparability of the results to yield the mean cost of managing CRC. Over and beyond that, information from some low-income countries is missing, limiting global representativeness.
AREAS COVERED: Procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic use was discussed in various clinical conditions across initiation, management, and discontinuation stages. Most experts strongly recommended using PCT-driven antibiotic therapy among patients with lower respiratory tract infections, sepsis, and COVID-19. However, additional research is required to understand the optimal use of PCT in patients with organ transplantation and cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Implementation of the solutions discussed in this review can help improve PCT utilization in guiding AMS in these regions and reducing challenges.
EXPERT OPINION: Experts strongly support the inclusion of PCT in AMS. They believe that PCT in combination with other clinical data to guide antibiotic therapy may result in more personalized and precise targeted antibiotic treatment. The future of PCT in antibiotic treatment is promising and may result in effective utilization of this biomarker.
METHODS: Eleven experienced cardiologists from across the Asia-Pacific countries participated in two rounds of the survey. In the first round, experts were asked to rate agreement/disagreement with 35 statements across seven domains regarding the use of β-blockers for treating hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery diseases, co-morbidities, as well as their safety profile, usage pattern, and pharmacokinetic variability. A consensus for a statement could be reached with >70% agreement.
RESULTS: Except for seven statements, all attained consensus in the first round. In the second round that was conducted virtually, the experts re-appraised their ratings for the seven statements along with a critical appraisal of two additional statements that were suggested by experts in the preceding round. At the end of the second round, the final version included 36 statements (34 original statements, two statements suggested by experts, and the omission of one statement that did not attain consensus). The final version of statements in the second round was disseminated among experts for their approval followed by manuscript development.
CONCLUSION: Attainment of consensus for almost all statements reconfirms the clinical benefits of β-blockers, particularly β1-selective blockers for the entire spectrum of cardiovascular diseases.
OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.
FINDINGS: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting.