ArticleBMC neurology2014
Optimizing the use of expert panel reference diagnoses in diagnostic studies of multidimensional syndromes.
Article in BMC neurology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of the efficacy of an online tool for improving the diagnosis of macular lesions imaged by optical coherence tomography.Journal of optometryTrial
- Diagnosing Apraxia of Speech in Children and Adults When There Is No Gold Standard: A Scoping Review About the Diagnostic Process.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- The LEADING guideline: Reporting standards for expert panel, best-estimate diagnosis, and longitudinal expert all data (LEAD) methods.Comprehensive psychiatry · 2025Article
- Comparison of the clinicians' and experts' assessments of rehabilitation service needs for patients in the middle of China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The LEADING Guideline: Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Normative Values for Word Syllable Duration With Interpretation in a Large Sample of Stroke Survivors With Aphasia.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
- Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development.The patient · 2020Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinical and Microbiological Signs in Patients With Skin Lesions Resembling Buruli Ulcer in an Endemic Region.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018Article
- Feasibility of an online consensus approach for the diagnosis of cognitive impairment and dementia in rural South Africa.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the absence of a gold standard, a panel of experts can be invited to assign a reference diagnosis for use in research. Available literature offers limited guidance on assembling and working with an expert panel for this purpose. We aimed to develop a protocol for an expert panel consensus diagnosis and evaluated its applicability in a pilot project.
methodsAn adjusted Delphi method was used, which started with the assessment of clinical vignettes by 3 experts individually, followed by a consensus discussion meeting to solve diagnostic discrepancies. A panel facilitator ensured that all experts were able to express their views, and encouraged the use of argumentation to arrive at a specific diagnosis, until consensus was reached by all experts. Eleven vignettes of patients suspected of having a primary neurodegenerative disease were presented to the experts. Clinical information was provided stepwise and included medical history, neurological, physical and cognitive function, brain MRI scan, and follow-up assessments over 2 years. After the consensus discussion meeting, the procedure was evaluated by the experts.
resultsThe average degree of consensus for the reference diagnosis increased from 52% after individual assessment of the vignettes to 94% after the consensus discussion meeting. Average confidence in the diagnosis after individual assessment was 85%. This did not increase after the consensus discussion meeting. The process evaluation led to several recommendations for improvement of the protocol.
conclusionA protocol for attaining a reference diagnosis based on expert panel consensus was shown feasible in research practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.