METHOD: This study utilized modified e-Delphi method to build consensus. A validated e-Delphi survey was administered to a purposive sample of 29 experts. Consensus was pre-defined to be the point where >85% of the experts fall in either agree or strongly agree category for each statement. The inter-expert agreement was computed in both rounds using Intra-class correlation coefficient and Kendall's W. Delphi operates in an iterative fashion till there comes stability in responses. At the end of each round, experts were provided aggregate response, their own response and choice to change their response in the light of aggregate response.
RESULTS: Response rate was 70.73% and 100% in 1st and 2nd round, respectively. Consensus was achieved on 119/132 statements which mainly referred to the need, structural and regulatory aspects of CMTM model in Malaysia. However, there were some flashpoints on dispensing separation and means to finance this model. Stability in response of experts was achieved after 2nd round; hence, no next round was executed.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the study findings witnessed the expert panel's support for the CMTM model. Study helped to sketch CMTM model and facilitated development of some recommendations to the authorities which may help to formulate a policy to bring CPs under a working relationship with GPs. Hence, this study should be taken as a call for redefining of the roles of CPs and GPs in Malaysia.
METHODS: The international consensus meeting on post-traumatic CP was held during the International Conference on Recent Advances in Neurotraumatology (ICRAN), in Naples, Italy, in June 2018. This meeting was endorsed by the Neurotrauma Committee of the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, and several other neurotrauma organizations. Discussions and voting were organized around 5 pre-specified themes: (1) indications and technique, (2) materials, (3) timing, (4) hydrocephalus, and (5) paediatric CP.
RESULTS: The participants discussed published evidence on each topic and proposed consensus statements, which were subject to ratification using anonymous real-time voting. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% for inclusion in the final recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: This document is the first set of practical consensus-based clinical recommendations on post-traumatic CP, focusing on timing, materials, complications, and surgical procedures. Future research directions are also presented.
METHODS: A Delphi questionnaire consisted of 29 Part 1 and nine Part 2 indicators which were incorporated into a tool called Simpler™. The indicators were mainly sourced from American, Australian and Malaysian diabetes management guidelines. Diabetes experts were asked to rank indicators in the order of importance in Part 1. In Part 2, indicators had to be chosen for inclusion into Simpler™ using a fivepoint Likert scale. The consensus level was pre-set at 60%.
RESULTS: A three round Delphi process was used to validate all 38 indicators by 12 experts from Australia and Malaysia: five pharmacists, four doctors, two endocrinologists and a diabetes nurse. Consensus was reached for 93.1% (27/29) of the Part 1 indicators and all nine Part 2 indicators (100%). Five out of nine indicators in Part 2 questionnaire obtained consensus disagreement for inclusion into the Simpler ™ tool.
CONCLUSION: The Simpler™ tool is the first structured diabetes multifactorial tool to address all seven evidence-based factors. The tool was refined and validated by multi-disciplinary health professionals from Australia and Malaysia. Pharmacists can use the Simpler™ tool to facilitate evidence-based comprehensive individualised care among type 2 diabetes patients.
METHODS: Research questions were formulated focusing on diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with RMD within the context of the pandemic, including the management of RMD in patients who developed COVID-19. MEDLINE was searched for eligible studies to address the questions, and the APLAR COVID-19 task force convened 2 meetings through video conferencing to discuss its findings and integrate best available evidence with expert opinion. Consensus statements were finalized using the modified Delphi process.
RESULTS: Agreement was obtained around key aspects of screening for or diagnosis of COVID-19; management of patients with RMD without confirmed COVID-19; and management of patients with RMD with confirmed COVID-19. The task force achieved consensus on 25 statements covering the potential risk of acquiring COVID-19 in RMD patients, advice on RMD medication adjustment and continuation, the roles of telemedicine and vaccination, and the impact of the pandemic on quality of life and on treatment adherence.
CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence primarily from descriptive research supported new recommendations for aspects of RMD care not covered in the previous document, particularly with regard to risk factors for complicated COVID-19 in RMD patients, modifications to RMD treatment regimens in the context of the pandemic, and COVID-19 vaccination in patients with RMD.
METHODS: A steering committee identified three areas to address: (1) burden of disease and diagnosis of reflux disease; (2) proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease; (3) Barrett's oesophagus. Three working groups formulated draft statements with supporting evidence. Discussions were done via email before a final face-to-face discussion. We used a Delphi consensus process, with a 70% agreement threshold, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to categorise the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
RESULTS: A total of 32 statements were proposed and 31 were accepted by consensus. A rise in the prevalence rates of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Asia was noted, with the majority being non-erosive reflux disease. Overweight and obesity contributed to the rise. Proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease was recognised to be common. A distinction was made between refractory symptoms and refractory reflux disease, with clarification of the roles of endoscopy and functional testing summarised in two algorithms. The definition of Barrett's oesophagus was revised such that a minimum length of 1 cm was required and the presence of intestinal metaplasia no longer necessary. We recommended the use of standardised endoscopic reporting and advocated endoscopic therapy for confirmed dysplasia and early cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines standardise the management of patients with refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus in the Asia-Pacific region.
METHODS: A modified Delphi study was used. A total of 70 statements were presented, using an online platform, over three consensus-seeking rounds, to participants with experience in the hospital care of patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures from UK-based specialist societies. Participants rated the level of their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined at 70% of respondents choosing either agree/strongly agree or disagree/strong disagree. Over the first two rounds, statements not reaching consensus were modified in subsequent rounds, and new statements proposed by participants and agreed by the research team could be added.
RESULTS: There were 71 participants in the first round, 37 in the second round and 28 (most of whom were geriatricians) in the third round. Consensus was reached in 52 statements covering fracture diagnosis, second-line imaging, organisation of hospital care, pain management and falls and bone health assessment. Consensus was not achieved for whether vertebral fragility fractures should be managed in a specific clinical area.
DISCUSSION: These findings provide the basis for the development of clinical guidelines and quality improvement initiatives. They also help to justify research into the merits of managing acute vertebral fragility fracture patients in a specific clinical area.