Transatlantic Multispecialty Consensus on Fundamental Endovascular Skills: Results of a Delphi Consensus Study

Women’s rugby (rugby league, rugby union and rugby sevens) has recently grown in participation and professionalisation. There is under-representation of women-only cohorts within applied sport science and medicine research and within the women’s rugby evidence base. The aims of this article are: Part 1: to undertake a systematic-scoping review of the applied sport science and medicine of women’s rugby, and Part 2: to develop a consensus statement on future research priorities. This article will be designed in two parts: Part 1: a systematic-scoping review, and Part 2: a three-round Delphi consensus method. For Part 1, systematic searches of three electronic databases (PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost)) will be performed from the earliest record. These databases will be searched to identify any sport science and medicine themed studies within women’s rugby. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be adhered to. Part 2 involves a three-round Delphi consensus method to identify future research priorities. Identified experts in women’s rugby will be provided with overall findings from Part 1 to inform decision-making. Participants will then be asked to provide a list of research priority areas. Over the three rounds, priority areas achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) will be identified. This study has received institutional ethical approval. When complete, the manuscript will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings of this article will have relevance for a wide range of stakeholders in women’s rugby, including policymakers and governing bodies.

Download Full-text

THU0528 NAILFOLD VIDEOCAPILLAROSCOPY REPORTING IN CLINICAL RESEARCH: INTERNATIONAL DELPHI BASED CONSENSUS

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.2415 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 503.1-504

Author(s):

F. Ingegnoli ◽

T. Schioppo ◽

A. Herrick ◽

A. Sulli ◽

F. Bartoli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Research ◽

Rheumatic Diseases ◽

Unmet Need ◽

Future Research ◽

Invasive Technique ◽

Delphi Consensus ◽

Research Support ◽

The Impact ◽

Research Studies

Background:Nailfold capillaroscopy (NVC), a non-invasive technique to assess microcirculation, is increasingly being incorporated into rheumatology routine clinical practice. Currently, the degree of description of NVC methods varies amongst research studies, making interpretation and comparison between studies challenging. In this field, an unmet need is the standardization of items to be reported in research studies using NVC.Objectives:To perform a Delphi consensus on minimum reporting standards in methodology for clinical research, based on the items derived from a systematic review focused on this topic.Methods:The systematic review of the literature on NVC methodology relating to rheumatic diseases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42018104660) to July 22nd2018 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus. Then, a three-step web-based Delphi consensus was performed in between members of the EULAR study group on microcirculation in rheumatic diseases and the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium. Participants were asked to rate each item from 1 (not appropriate) to 9 (completely appropriate).Results:In total, 3491 references were retrieved in the initial search strategy, 2862 were excluded as duplicates or after title/abstract screening. 632 articles were retrieved for full paper review of which 319 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Regarding patient preparation before the exam, data were scarce: 38% reported acclimatization, 5% to avoid caffeine and smoking, 3% to wash hands and 2% to avoid manicure. Concerning the device description: 90% reported type of instrument, 77% brand/model, 72% magnification, 46% oil use, 40% room temperature and 35% software for image analysis. As regards to examination details: 76% which fingers examined, 75% number of fingers examined, 15% operator experience, 13% reason for finger exclusion, 9% number of images, 8% quality check of the images and 3% time spent for the exam. Then, a three-round Delphi consensus on the selected items was completed by 80 participants internationally, from 31 countries located in Australia, Asia, Europe, North and South America. Some items reached the agreement at the second round (85 participants), and other items were suggested as important to consider in a future research agenda (e.g. temperature for acclimatization, the impact of smoking, allergies at the application of the oil to the nailbed, significance of pericapillary edema, methods of reporting hemorrhages, ramified and giant capillaries). The final agreement results are reported below:Conclusion:On the basis of the available literature the description of NVC methods was highly heterogeneous and individual published studies differed markedly. These practical suggestions developed using a Delphi process among international participants provide a guidance to improve and to standardize the NVC methodology in future clinical research studies.Disclosure of Interests:Francesca Ingegnoli: None declared, Tommaso Schioppo: None declared, Ariane Herrick: None declared, Alberto Sulli Grant/research support from: Laboratori Baldacci, Francesca Bartoli: None declared, Nicola Ughi: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Maurizio Cutolo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Actelion, Celgene, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Sigma-Alpha, Vanessa Smith Grant/research support from: The affiliated company received grants from Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO), Belgian Fund for Scientific Research in Rheumatic diseases (FWRO), Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co and Janssen-Cilag NV, Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co, Speakers bureau: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co and UCB Biopharma Sprl

Download Full-text

Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall blocks

Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine ◽

10.1136/rapm-2020-102451 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 46 (7) ◽

pp. 571-580

Author(s):

Kariem El-Boghdadly ◽

Morné Wolmarans ◽

Angela D Stengel ◽

Eric Albrecht ◽

Ki Jinn Chin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Education Research ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Abdominal Wall ◽

Chest Wall ◽

Round Table Discussion ◽

Anesthetic Techniques ◽

Delphi Consensus ◽

International Consensus ◽

Strong Consensus ◽

Regional Anesthetic

BackgroundThere is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques.MethodsWe conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement.ResultsSixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified.ConclusionsHarmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Aromatic L-amino Acid Decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency: results from an Italian modified Delphi consensus

Italian Journal of Pediatrics ◽

10.1186/s13052-021-00954-4 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 47 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Carlo Fusco ◽

◽

Vincenzo Leuzzi ◽

Pasquale Striano ◽

Roberta Battini ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Amino Acid ◽

Diagnostic Delay ◽

Steering Committee ◽

Outcome Data ◽

Diagnosis And Treatment ◽

Acid Decarboxylase ◽

Delphi Consensus ◽

Amino Acid Decarboxylase ◽

Modified Delphi ◽

Number Of Patients

Abstract Background Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency is a rare and underdiagnosed neurometabolic disorder resulting in a complex neurological and non-neurological phenotype, posing diagnostic challenges resulting in diagnostic delay. Due to the low number of patients, gathering high-quality scientific evidence on diagnosis and treatment is difficult. Additionally, based on the estimated prevalence, the number of undiagnosed patients is likely to be high. Methods Italian experts in AADC deficiency formed a steering committee to engage clinicians in a modified Delphi consensus to promote discussion, and support research, dissemination and awareness on this disorder. Five experts in the field elaborated six main topics, each subdivided into 4 statements and invited 13 clinicians to give their anonymous feedback. Results 100% of the statements were answered and a consensus was reached at the first round. This enabled the steering committee to acknowledge high rates of agreement between experts on clinical presentation, phenotypes, diagnostic work-up and treatment strategies. A research gap was identified in the lack of standardized cognitive and motor outcome data. The need for setting up an Italian working group and a patients’ association, together with the dissemination of knowledge inside and outside scientific societies in multiple medical disciplines were recognized as critical lines of intervention. Conclusions The panel expressed consensus with high rates of agreement on a series of statements paving the way to disseminate clear messages concerning disease presentation, diagnosis and treatment and strategic interventions to disseminate knowledge at different levels. Future lines of research were also identified.

Download Full-text