ArticleHealth services research and managerial epidemiology
A Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus-Based Checklist to Define Clinical Documentation Tools for Both Routine and Research Purposes.
Article in Health services research and managerial epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Scoping Review of Essential Methodological Elements for Developing a Tool to Improve the Reporting of Consensus Studies in Classification, Diagnostic Criteria, and Guidelines Development.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Identification of Five Quality Needs for Rheumatology (Text Analysis and Literature Review).Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Guidelines for the conservative treatment of spinal deformities - Questionnaire for a Delphi consensus.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo the best of our knowledge, a strategic approach to define the contents of structured clinical documentation tools for both clinical routine patient care and research purposes has not been reported so far, although electronic health record will become more and more structured and detailed in the future.
objectiveTo achieve an interdisciplinary consensus on a checklist to be considered for the preparation of disease- and situation-specific clinical documentation tools.
methodsA 2-round Delphi consensus-based process was conducted both with 19 physicians of different disciplines and 14 students from Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Agreement was defined as 80% or more positive votes of the participants.
resultsThe participants agreed that a working group should be set up for the development of structured disease- or situation-specific documentation tools (97% agreement). The final checklist included 4 recommendations concerning the setup of the working group, 12 content-related recommendations, and 3 general and technical recommendations (mean agreement [standard deviation] = 97.4% [4.0%], ranging from 84.2% to 100.0%). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionIn the future, disease- and situation-specific structured documentation tools will provide an important bridge between registries and electronic health records. Clinical documentation tools defined according to this Delphi consensus-based checklist will provide data for registries while serving as high-quality data acquisition tools in routine clinical care.
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.