Delphi-Consensus Weights for Ischemic and Bleeding Events to Be Included in a Composite Outcome for RCTs in Thrombosis Prevention

To weight ischemic and bleeding events according to their severity to be used in a composite outcome in RCTs in the field of thrombosis prevention.Using a Delphi consensus method, a panel of anaesthesiology and cardiology experts rated the severity of thrombotic and bleeding clinical events. The ratings were expressed on a 10-point scale. The median and quartiles of the ratings of each item were returned to the experts. Then, the panel members evaluated the events a second time with knowledge of the group responses from the first round. Cronbach's a was used as a measure of homogeneity for the ratings. The final rating for each event corresponded to the median rating obtained at the last Delphi round.Of 70 experts invited, 32 (46%) accepted to participate. Consensus was reached at the second round as indicated by Cronbach's a value (0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00)) so the Delphi was stopped. Severity ranged from under-popliteal venous thrombosis (median = 3, Q1 = 2; Q3 = 3) to ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage with severe disability at 7 days and massive pulmonary embolism (median = 9, Q1 = 9; Q3 = 9). Ratings did not differ according to the medical specialty of experts.These ratings could be used to weight ischemic and bleeding events of various severity comprising a composite outcome in the field of thrombosis prevention

Reliability of case definitions for public health surveillance assessed by Round-Robin test methodology

BACKGROUND: Case definitions have been recognized to be important elements of public health surveillance systems. They are to assure comparability and consistency of surveillance data and have crucial impact on the sensitivity and the positive predictive value of a surveillance system. The reliability of case definitions has rarely been investigated systematically. METHODS: We conducted a Round-Robin test by asking all 425 local health departments (LHD) and the 16 state health departments (SHD) in Germany to classify a selection of 68 case examples using case definitions. By multivariate analysis we investigated factors linked to classification agreement with a gold standard, which was defined by an expert panel. RESULTS: A total of 7870 classifications were done by 396 LHD (93%) and all SHD. Reporting sensitivity was 90.0%, positive predictive value 76.6%. Polio case examples had the lowest reporting precision, salmonellosis case examples the highest (OR = 0.008; CI: 0.005–0.013). Case definitions with a check-list format of clinical criteria resulted in higher reporting precision than case definitions with a narrative description (OR = 3.08; CI: 2.47–3.83). Reporting precision was higher among SHD compared to LHD (OR = 1.52; CI: 1.14–2.02). CONCLUSION: Our findings led to a systematic revision of the German case definitions and build the basis for general recommendations for the creation of case definitions. These include, among others, that testable yes/no criteria in a check-list format is likely to improve reliability, and that software used for data transmission should be designed in strict accordance with the case definitions. The findings of this study are largely applicable to case definitions in many other countries or international networks as they share the same structural and editorial characteristics of the case definitions evaluated in this study before their revision

Core outcome domains for early-phase clinical trials of sound-, psychology-, and pharmacology-based interventions to manage chronic subjective tinnitus in adults: the COMIT'ID study protocol for using a Delphi process and face-to-face meetings to establish consensus

Background: The reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of subjective tinnitus indicates that many different tinnitus-related complaints are of interest to investigators, from perceptual attributes of the sound (e.g. loudness) to psychosocial impacts (e.g. quality of life). Even when considering one type of intervention strategy for subjective tinnitus, there is no agreement about what is critically important for deciding whether a treatment is effective. The main purpose of this observational study is therefore to develop Core Outcome Domain Sets for the three different intervention strategies (sound, psychological, and pharmacological) for adults with chronic subjective tinnitus that should be measured and reported in every clinical trial of these interventions. Secondary objectives are to identify the strengths and limitations of our study design for recruiting and reducing attrition of participants, and to explore uptake of the core outcomes. Methods: The ‘Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus: International Delphi’ (COMIT’ID) study will use a mixed methods approach that incorporates input from healthcare users at the pre-Delphi stage, a modified three round Delphi survey and final consensus meetings (one for each intervention). The meetings will generate recommendations by stakeholder representatives on agreed Core Outcome Domain Sets specific to each intervention. A subsequent step will establish a common cross-cutting Core Outcome Domain Set by identifying the common outcome domains included in all three intervention-specific Core Outcome Domain Sets. To address the secondary objectives, we will gather feedback from participants about their experience of taking part in the Delphi process. We aspire to conduct an observational cohort study to evaluate uptake of the core outcomes in published studies at 7 years following core outcome set publication. Discussion: The COMIT’ID study aims to develop a Core Outcome Domain Set that are agreed as critically important for deciding whether a treatment for subjective tinnitus is effective. Such a recommendation would help to standardise future clinical trials worldwide and so we will determine if participation increases use of the core outcome set in the long term. Trial registration: This project has been registered in the database of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative

Drugs foresight 2020: a Delphi expert panel study

Peer reviewe

A Delphi study and ranking exercise to support commissioning services:Future delivery of Thrombectomy services in England

Background: Intra-arterial thrombectomy is the gold standard treatment for large artery occlusive stroke. However, the evidence of its benefits is almost entirely based on trials delivered by experienced neurointerventionists working in established teams in neuroscience centres. Those responsible for the design and prospective reconfiguration of services need access to a comprehensive and complementary array of information on which to base their decisions. This will help to ensure the demonstrated effects from trials may be realised in practice and account for regional/local variations in resources and skill-sets. One approach to elucidate the implementation preferences and considerations of key experts is a Delphi survey. In order to support commissioning decisions, we aimed to using an electronic Delphi survey to establish consensus on the options for future organisation of thrombectomy services among physicians with clinical experience in managing large artery occlusive stroke. Methods: A Delphi survey was developed with 12 options for future organisation of thrombectomy services in England. A purposive sampling strategy established an expert panel of stroke physicians from the British Association of Stroke Physicians (BASP) Clinical Standards and/or Executive Membership that deliver 24/7 intravenous thrombolysis. Options with aggregate scores falling within the lowest quartile were removed from the subsequent Delphi round. Options reaching consensus following the two Delphi rounds were then ranked in a final exercise by both the wider BASP membership and the British Society of Neuroradiologists (BSNR). Results: Eleven stroke physicians from BASP completed the initial two Delphi rounds. Three options achieved consensus, with subsequently wider BASP (97%, n=43) and BSNR members (86%, n=21) assigning the highest approval rankings in the final exercise for transferring large artery occlusive stroke patients to nearest neuroscience centre for thrombectomy based on local CT/CT Angiography. Conclusions: The initial Delphi rounds ensured optimal reduction of options by an expert panel of stroke physicians, while subsequent ranking exercises allowed remaining options to be ranked by a wider group of experts within stroke to reach consensus. The preferred implementation option for thrombectomy is conveying suspected stroke patients for CT/CT Angiography and secondary transfer of large artery occlusive stroke patients to the nearest neuroscience centre

Exploring consensus on how to measure smoking cessation. A Delphi study

Background Different criteria regarding outcome measures in smoking research are used, which can lead to confusion about study results. Consensus in outcome criteria may enhance the comparability of future studies. This study aims (1) to provide an overview of tobacco researchers’ considered preferences regarding outcome criteria in randomized controlled smoking cessation trials, and (2) to identify the extent to which researchers can reach consensus on the importance of these outcome criteria. Methods A three-round online Delphi study was conducted among smoking cessation experts. In the first round, the most important smoking cessation outcome measures were collected by means of open-ended questions, which were categorized around self-reported and biochemical validation measures. Experts (n = 17) were asked to name the outcome measures (as well as their assessment method and ideal follow-up period) that they thought were important when assessing smoking-related outcomes. In the second (n = 48) and third rounds (n = 37), a list of outcome measures—identified in the first round—was presented to experts. Asking them to rate the importance of each measure on a seven-point scale. Results Experts reached consensus on several items. For self-reports, experts agreed that prolonged abstinence (6 or/and 12 months), point prevalence abstinence (7 days), continuous abstinence (6 months), and the number of cigarettes smoked (7 days) are important outcome measures. Experts reached consensus that biochemical validation methods should not always be used. The preferred biochemical validation methods were carbon monoxide (expired air) and cotinine (saliva). Preferred follow-ups included 6 and/or 12 months, with or without intermediate measurements. Conclusions Findings suggest only partial compliance with the Russell standard and that more outcome measures may be important (including seven-day point-prevalence abstinence, number of cigarettes smoked, and cotinine when using biochemical validation). This study showed where there is and is not consensus, reflecting the need to develop a more comprehensive standard. For these purposes we provided suggestions for the Russell 2.0 standard

Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy

This paper is concerned with the many interleaving issues that emerge when engaging multiple stakeholders in decision-making. Whilst recognising the intrinsic value of group work and keeping in mind the numerous issues that obstruct group work (including multiple roles for participants, bias due to domination and distortion emerging from uneven group inputs), we applied the Imagine method to propose a new framework - the ‘Multiple Formation Consultation Framework’ (MFCF) - for organising effective multi-stakeholder consultations along the Policy Sciences Framework. Our proposed framework was applied in the context of education policy in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, where 24 small group formations were tasked and assessed in a systemic manner. Evidence from the exercise suggests that: (1) when moving participants from heterogeneous to homogenous groups, the working of the groups became more focused and the outcomes gained greater clarity in terms of the thinking of group members. (2) Yet, when groups moved from homogenous formations to heterogeneous, they became more inquisitive and explored broader aspects of the tasks at hand. (3) A repeat of the process over two-day period where different members of the groups experience both homogenous and heterogeneous formations back and forth (in order to capture the unique value emerging from each composition) have led to more efficient and effective working and outcomes of the groups