DDC-10 Year Requirements and Planning Study. Expert Panel Review Report

1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. McGeehan ◽  
Martha Cornog ◽  
Jerome T. Maddock
Keyword(s):  
Expert Panel ◽  
Planning Study ◽  
Panel Review

scholarly journals Adaptation of a Group-Based HIV RISK Reduction Intervention to a Mobile App for Young Sexual Minority Men

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 449-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Schnall ◽  
Lisa M. Kuhns ◽  
Marco A. Hidalgo ◽  
Dakota Powell ◽  
Jennie Thai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Software Development ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Sexual Minority Men ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
Minority Men ◽  
Sex With Men ◽  
Panel Review

There is a dearth of evidence-based HIV prevention interventions for very young men who have sex with men (YMSM) ages 13–18 years, at high risk for HIV. We adapted the MyPEEPS intervention—an evidence-based, group-level intervention—to individual-level delivery by a mobile application. We used an expert panel review, in-depth interviews with YMSM (n = 40), and weekly meetings with the investigative team and the software development company to develop the mobile app. The expert panel recommended changes to the intervention in the following areas: (1) biomedical interventions, (2) salience of intervention content, (3) age group relevance, (4) technical components, and (5) stigma content. Interview findings reflected current areas of focus for the intervention and recommendations of the expert panel for new content. In regular meetings with the software development firm, guiding principles included development of dynamic content, while maintaining fidelity of the original curriculum and shortening intervention content for mobile delivery.

Clinical Management of Patients with a History of Urticaria/Angioedema Induced by Multiple NSAIDs: An Expert Panel Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 160 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riccardo Asero ◽  
Sevim Bavbek ◽  
Miguel Blanca ◽  
Natalia Blanca-Lopez ◽  
Gabriele Cortellini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Management ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
History Of ◽  
Panel Review

scholarly journals Role of biomarkers in the management of antibiotic therapy: an expert panel review II: clinical use of biomarkers for initiation or discontinuation of antibiotic therapy

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Quenot ◽  
Charles-Edouard Luyt ◽  
Nicolas Roche ◽  
Martin Chalumeau ◽  
Pierre-Emmanuel Charles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Panel Review

scholarly journals Expert panel process to optimise the design of a randomised controlled trial in chronic rhinosinusitis (the MACRO programme).

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Vennik ◽  
Helen Blackshaw ◽  
Carl Philpott ◽  
Mike Thomas ◽  
Caroline Eyles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Best Management ◽  
Oral Steroids ◽  
Panel Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background MACRO (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis) is an NIHR-funded programme of work designed to establish best practice for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The 7-year programme comprises three consecutive workstreams, designed to explore NHS care pathways through analysis of primary and secondary data sources, and to undertake a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a longer-term course of macrolide antibiotics and endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with CRS. A number of outstanding elements still required clarification at the funding stage. This paper reports an expert panel review process designed to agree and finalise the MACRO trial design, ensuring relevance to patients and clinicians whilst maximising trial recruitment and retention. Methods An expert panel consisting of the MACRO programme management group, independent advisors, and patient contributors, was convened to review current evidence and the mixed method data collected as part of the programme, and reach agreement on MACRO trial design. Specifically, agreement was sought for selection of macrolide antibiotic, use of oral steroids, inclusion of CRS phenotypes (with/without nasal polyps), and overall trial design. Results A 12-week course of clarithromycin was agreed as the main trial comparator, due to its increasing use as a first and second line treatment for patients with CRS, and the perceived need to establish its role in CRS management. Oral steroids will be used as a rescue medication during the trial, rather than routinely either pre or post trial randomisation, to limit any potential effects on surgical outcomes and better reflect current UK prescribing habits. Both CRS phenotypes will be included in a single trial to ensure the MACRO trial is both pragmatic and generalisable to primary care. A modified 3-arm trial design was agreed after intense discussions and further exploratory work. Inclusion criteria were amended to ensure that patients recruited would be considered eligible for the treatment offered in the trial, due to having already received appropriate medical therapy as deemed suitable by their ENT surgeon. A proposed 6-week run-in period prior to randomisation was removed due to the new criteria prior to randomisation. Conclusion The expert panel review process resulted in agreement on key elements and an optimal design for the MACRO trial, considered most likely to be successful in terms of both recruitment potential and ability to establish best management of patients with CRS.

Focus Group and Expert Panel Review of the Updated Manual

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Riggs Romaine ◽  
Jennifer M. Serico ◽  
Amanda D. Zelechoski ◽  
Kathleen Kemp ◽  
Heather Zelle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Panel Review

scholarly journals Role of biomarkers in the management of antibiotic therapy: an expert panel review: I – currently available biomarkers for clinical use in acute infections

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Dupuy ◽  
François Philippart ◽  
Yves Péan ◽  
Sigismond Lasocki ◽  
Pierre-Emmanuel Charles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Acute Infections ◽  
Panel Review

scholarly journals Evaluation of Clinical Relevance of Drug–Drug Interaction Alerts Prior to Implementation

2018 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. 849-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Meslin ◽  
W. Zheng ◽  
R. Day ◽  
E. Tay ◽  
M. Baysari
Keyword(s):  
Drug Interaction ◽  
Clinical Relevance ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Multiple Drug ◽  
Poor Agreement ◽  
Computerized Provider Order Entry ◽  
High Agreement ◽  
Alert Fatigue ◽  
Drug Drug Interaction ◽  
Panel Review

Introduction Drug–drug interaction (DDI) alerts are often implemented in the hospital computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems with limited evaluation. This increases the risk of prescribers experiencing too many irrelevant alerts, resulting in alert fatigue. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinical relevance of alerts prior to implementation in CPOE using two common approaches: compendia and expert panel review. Methods After generating a list of hypothetical DDI alerts, that is, alerts that would have been triggered if DDI alerts were operational in the CPOE, we calculated the agreement between multiple drug interaction compendia with regards to the severity of these alerts. A subset of DDI alerts (n = 13), with associated patient information, were presented to an expert panel to reach a consensus on whether each alert should be included in the CPOE. Results There was poor agreement between compendia in their classifications of DDI severity (Krippendorff's α: 0.03; 95% confidence interval: –0.07 to 0.14). Only 10% of DDI alerts were classed as severe by all compendia. On the other hand, the panel reached consensus on 12 of the 13 alerts that were presented to them regarding whether they should be included in the CPOE. Conclusion Using an expert panel and allowing them to discuss their views openly likely resulted in high agreement on what alerts should be included in a CPOE system. Presenting alerts in the context of patient cases allowed panelists to identify the conditions under which alerts were clinically relevant. The poor agreement between compendia suggests that this methodology may not be ideal for the evaluation of DDI alerts. Performing preimplementation review of DDI alerts before they are enabled provides an opportunity to minimize the risk of alert fatigue before prescribers are exposed to false-positive alerts.

Summary report for the expert panel review of the toxicological profile for mercury

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 483-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Risher ◽  
Christopher T. De Rosa ◽  
Dennis E. Jones ◽  
H. Edward Murray
Keyword(s):  
Expert Panel ◽  
Summary Report ◽  
Toxicological Profile ◽  
Panel Review
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document