METHODS: a steering committee was assembled and 10 working Groups were created to provide preliminary evidence-based recommendations. A cross-cutting theme on patient's perspective was also created. In addition, a worldwide multidisciplinary group of experts and stakeholders, to review the proposed recommendations and to participate in a Delphi process to achieve consensus for the final recommendations, was brought together.

METHODS: An iterative e-Delphi technique was employed as the method for gathering consensus on a range of topics found pertinent to affect orthodontic teaching and learning established through literature review. A total of ten expert panellists were recruited through a targeted invitation to the orthodontists from Malaysian public universities offering undergraduate dental education. The e-Delphi comprised of three rounds of anonymous e-survey. The consensus was sought for two open-ended and two closed-ended questions.

RESULTS: The response rates for all the three rounds were 100 per cent. The total number of questions responded by the participants in all the three rounds was forty-four. Round one achieved consensus on two closed-ended questions. Round two achieved a consensus on twenty-eight out of thirty-four (82.35%) questions with round three achieving a consensus on four out of six (66.66%) questions. A 70% consensus was considered as the minimum level of agreement for all the rounds. In total, consensus and agreement were achieved on two closed-ended questions and twenty-nine items from the open-ended questions.

METHODS: A two-round online survey will be conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a Core Domain Set. Participants will belong to one of two stakeholder groups: healthcare users with lived experience of tinnitus, and professionals with relevant clinical, commercial, or research experience.

METHODS: Twelve orthopedic surgeons participated in a modified Delphi panel consisting of 2 parts (each part comprising two rounds) from September-October 2018. Questionnaires were developed based on published evidence and guidelines on surgical techniques/materials. Questionnaires were administered via email (Round 1) or at a face-to-face meeting (subsequent rounds). Panelists ranked their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was achieved if ≥70% of panelists selected 4/5, or 1/2. Statements not reaching consensus in Round 1 were discussed and repeated or modified in Round 2. Statements not reaching consensus in Round 2 were excluded from the final consensus framework.

RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 13 goals of wound management. Panelists agreed on 38 challenges and 71 strategies addressing surgical techniques or wound closure materials for each tissue layer, and management strategies for blood loss reduction or deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in TKA. Statements on closure of capsular and skin layers, wound irrigation, dressings and drains required repeat voting or modification to reach consensus.

DESIGN: Clinical questions relevant to the afore-mentioned major issues were drafted for which expert panels formulated relevant statements and textural explanations.A Delphi method using an anonymous system was employed to develop the consensus, the level of which was predefined as ≥80% of agreement. Two rounds of voting and amendments were completed before the meeting at which clinical questions and consensus were finalised.

RESULTS: Twenty eight clinical questions and statements were finalised after extensive amendments. Critical consensus was achieved: (1) definition for the GOJ, (2) definition of the GOJZ spanning 1 cm proximal and distal to the GOJ as defined by the end of palisade vessels was accepted based on the anatomical distribution of cardiac type gland, (3) chemical and bacterial (Helicobacter pylori) factors as the primary causes of inflammation, metaplasia and neoplasia occurring in the GOJZ, (4) a new definition of Barrett's oesophagus (BO).

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.

METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.

RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.

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.

METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.

RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).