OBJECTIVES: To consider which items from a long list of candidate items to exclude and which to cluster into outcome domains.
METHODS: The study used an international and multistakeholder approach, involving patients, dermatologists, surgeons, the pharmaceutical industry and medical regulators. The study format was a combination of formal presentations, small group work based on nominal group theory and a subsequent online confirmation survey.
RESULTS: Forty-one individuals from 13 countries and four continents participated. Nine items were excluded and there was consensus to propose seven domains: disease course, physical signs, HS-specific quality of life, satisfaction, symptoms, pain and global assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: The HISTORIC consensus meetings I and II will be followed by further e-Delphi rounds to finalize the core domain set, building on the work of the in-person consensus meetings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of English-language articles published between 2000 and 2016, identified from MEDLINE using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The strength of available evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were developed through consensus using the Delphi technique.
RESULTS: Fourteen axial SpA treatment recommendations were developed based on evidence summaries and consensus. The first 2 recommendations cover non-pharmacological approaches to management. Recommendations 3 to 5 describe the following: the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line symptomatic treatment; the avoidance of long-term corticosteroid use; and the utility of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for peripheral or extra-articular manifestations. Recommendation 6 refers to the indications for biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Recommendation 7 deals specifically with screening for infections endemic to Asia, prior to use of bDMARDs. Recommendations 7 to 13 cover the role of bDMARDs in the treatment of active axial SpA and include related issues such as continuing therapy and use in special populations. Recommendation 14 deals with the utility of surgical intervention in axial SpA.
CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide up-to-date guidance for treatment of axial SpA to help meet the needs of patients and clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Delphi consensus technique was conducted online to review and evaluate the framework module. A panel of experts, including rehabilitation medicine physicians, occupational therapists, and clinical psychologists in Malaysia, was invited to participate in this study. For each round, the expert consensus was defined as more than 90% of the expert panel agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposed items.
RESULTS: A total of 33 practitioners completed the three Delphi rounds. 72.7% of the expert panel have been practising in their relevant clinical fields for more than six years (M = 10.67, SD = 5.68). In Round 1, 23% of the experts suggested that the framework module for attention training required further improvements, specifically in the language (M = 1.97, SD = 0.75) and instructions (M = 2.03, SD = 0.71) provided. In Round 2, 15% of the experts recommended additional changes in the instruction (M = 2.15, SD = 0.67) for attention training. Amendments made to the framework module in line with the recommendations provided by the experts resulted in a higher level of consensus, as 94% to 100% of the experts in Round 3 concluded the framework module was suitable and comprehensive for our breast cancer survivors. Following the key results, the objectives were practical, and the proposed approaches, strategies, and techniques for attention and memory training were feasible. The clarity of the instructions, procedures, verbatim transcripts, and timeframe further enhanced the efficacy and utility of the framework module.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found out that the cognitive intervention framework module for breast cancer survivors with cognitive impairment following chemotherapy can be successfully developed and feasible to be implemented using Delphi technique.
Methods: The modified Delphi method was used to obtain the consensus. The initial indicators, based on a literature review, were evaluated and assessed by members of the expert panel through three rounds of repetition until the consensus was reached. The expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge of or expertise in pharmacy service performance and geographical considerations. Analysis of the expert panel consensus level was determined by calculating the mean and interquartile range.
Results: Fifteen expert panel members started the first round (93.7% of the 16 targets) with 12 of them (75%) completing the third round of the modified Delphi method. Three expert panel members were representatives of the Regency Health Office, and the others were pharmacist practitioners at primary health centres from three different regencies. The consensus results were 26 indicators of drug management, 19 indicators of clinical pharmacy services, and two indicators of overall pharmacy performance.
Conclusion: The consensus indicators for measuring drug management, clinical pharmacy services, and overall pharmacy performance can be used as a reference and standard to measure the quality of pharmacy services at primary health centres. Therefore, the measurement results are more relevant if compared between one and other studies.
METHODS: A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI2 G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.
RESULTS: Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.
CONCLUSION: This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A two-round Delphi online questionnaire was completed and validated by international experts to identify consensual items. They were asked to rate the validity of each items taking into account the recommendations and practices in their countries. Only propositions obtaining a median score in the upper tertile with an agreement of more than 75% of the panel-for the first round-and 85%-for the second round-were retained.
RESULTS: Our panel included 11 pharmacists (55%) and 9 physicians (45%). The panelists came from 12 different countries: England, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ivory Coast, Ireland, Malaysia, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Vietnam. At the end of the first round, of the 105 items of the original POPI tool, 80 items were retained including 16 items reworded and 25 items were deleted. In the second round, 14 experts participated in the study. This final international POPI tool is composed of 73 IP and omissions of prescriptions in the fields of neuropsychiatry, dermatology, infectiology, pneumology, gastroenterology, pain and fever.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study highlights international consensus on prescription practice in pediatrics. The use of this tool in everyday practice could reduce the risk of inappropriate prescription. The impact of the diffusion of POPI tool will be assessed in a prospective multicentric study.
DESIGN: Recommendations from a working group of international experts in macular degeneration outcomes registry development and patient advocates, facilitated by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).
METHODS: Modified Delphi technique, supported by structured teleconferences, followed by online surveys to drive consensus decisions. Potential outcomes were identified through literature review of outcomes collected in existing registries and reported in major clinical trials. Outcomes were refined by the working group and selected based on impact on patients, relationship to good clinical care, and feasibility of measurement in routine clinical practice.
RESULTS: Standardized measurement of the following outcomes is recommended: visual functioning and quality of life (distance visual acuity, mobility and independence, emotional well-being, reading and accessing information); number of treatments; complications of treatment; and disease control. Proposed data collection sources include administrative data, clinical data during routine clinical visits, and patient-reported sources annually. Recording the following clinical characteristics is recommended to enable risk adjustment: age; sex; ethnicity; smoking status; baseline visual acuity in both eyes; type of macular degeneration; presence of geographic atrophy, subretinal fibrosis, or pigment epithelial detachment; previous macular degeneration treatment; ocular comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: The recommended minimum outcomes and pragmatic reporting standards should enable standardized, meaningful assessments and comparisons of macular degeneration treatment outcomes. Adoption could accelerate global improvements in standardized data gathering and reporting of patient-centered outcomes. This can facilitate informed decisions by patients and health care providers, plus allow long-term monitoring of aggregate data, ultimately improving understanding of disease progression and treatment responses.
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.
OBJECTIVES: Conduct a Delphi panel study to identify current evidence and gain advanced insights into GPP.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was used to identify published literature and develop statements categorized into four key domains: clinical course and flare definition; diagnosis; treatment goals; and holistic management. Statements were rated on a Likert scale by a panel of dermatologists in two rounds of online questionnaires; the threshold for consensus was agreement by ≥80%.
RESULTS: Twenty-one panellists reached consensus on 70.9%, 61.8%, 100.0% and 81.8% of statements in the 'clinical course and flare definition', 'diagnosis', 'treatment goals' and 'holistic management of GPP' domains, respectively. There was clear consensus on GPP being phenotypically, genetically and immunologically distinct from plaque psoriasis. Clinical course is highly variable, with an extensive range of complications. Clinical and histologic features supporting GPP diagnosis reached high levels of agreement, and although laboratory evaluations were considered helpful for diagnosis and monitoring disease severity, there was uncertainty around the value of individual tests. All acute and long-term treatment goals reached consensus, including rapid and sustained clearance of pustules, erythema, scaling and crust, clearance of skin lesions and prevention of new flares. Potential triggers, associated comorbidities and differential diagnoses achieved low rates of consensus, indicating that further evidence is needed.
CONCLUSIONS: Global consensus between dermatologists was reached on clinically meaningful goals for GPP treatment, on key features of GPP flares and on approaches for assessing disease severity and multidisciplinary management of patients. On this basis, we present a management algorithm for patients with GPP for use in clinical practice.
DESIGN: We conducted a modified three-round eDelphi survey with pediatric critical care nurses in Asia. The eDelphi technique has been extensively used within health research to achieve a common viewpoint from experts using questionnaires to gather research priorities. In round 1, participants were asked to list three to five research topics that they deemed important. These topics were thematically analyzed and categorized into a questionnaire. Participants rated the research topics in round 2 on a 6-point scale (1 = not important to 6 = extremely important). In round 3, the same questionnaire was used with addition of the calculated mean scores from round 2 for each topic. Research topics ranked among the top 10 were considered extremely important.
SETTINGS: Twenty-two PICUs in eight Asian countries.
SUBJECTS: Clinical nurses, managers, educators, and researchers.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In round 1, 146 PICU nurses across eight countries provided 520 research topics. Topics from round 1 were categorized into seven domains with 52 research topics. Prioritized research topics included early recognition of patient deterioration (mean 5.58 ± 0.61), prevention of healthcare-associated infections (mean 5.47 ± 0.70), and interventions to reduce compassion fatigue (mean 5.45 ± 0.80). The top three research domains were end-of-life care (mean 5.34 ± 0.68), professionalism (mean 5.34 ± 0.69), and management of pain, sedation, and delirium (5.32 ± 0.72).
CONCLUSIONS: This first PICU nursing research prioritization exercise within Asia identified key nursing research themes that should be prioritized and provide a framework for future collaborative studies.