Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29484260›Full record

ArticleBrain and behavior2018

Using Delphi methodology in the development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for stroke survivors with visual impairment.

Lauren R Hepworth, Fiona J Rowe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain and behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Validation of the brain injury associated visual impairment - impact questionnaire (BIVI-IQ).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren R HepworthDepartment of Health Services Research University of Liverpool Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8542-9815
Fiona J RoweDepartment of Health Services Research University of Liverpool Liverpool UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9210-9131
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2012-05-126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to ascertain what items stroke survivors and stroke care professionals think are important when assessing quality of life for stroke survivors with visual impairment for inclusion in the new patient-reported outcome measure. Methods: A reactive Delphi process was used in a three-round electronic-based survey. The items presented consisted of 62 items originally sourced from a systematic review of existing vision-related quality of life instruments and stroke survivor interviews, reduced and refined following a ranking exercise and pilot with stroke survivors with visual impairment. Stakeholders (stroke survivors/clinicians) were invited to take part in the process. A consensus definition of ≥70% was decided a priori. Participants were asked to rank importance on a 9-point scale and categorize the items by relevance to types of visual impairment following stroke or not relevant. Analysis of consensus, stability, and agreement was conducted. Results: In total, 113 participants registered for the Delphi survey of which 47 (41.6%) completed all three rounds. Response rates to the three rounds were 78/113 (69.0%), 61/76 (81.3%), and 49/64 (76.6%), respectively. The participants included orthoptists (45.4%), occupational therapists (44.3%), and stroke survivors (10.3%). Consensus was reached on 56.5% of items in the three-round process, all for inclusion. A consensus was reached for 83.8% in the categorization of items. The majority (82.6%) of consensus were for relevant to 'all visual impairment following stroke'; two items were deemed 'not relevant'. Conclusion: The lack of item reduction achieved by this Delphi process highlights the need for additional methods of item reduction in the development of a new PROM for visual impairment following stroke. These results will be considered alongside Rasch analysis to achieve further item reduction. However, the Delphi survey remains important as it provides clinical and patient insight into each item rather than purely relying on the psychometric data.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeStrokeVision DisordersAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeeds AssessmentPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesDelphi processpatient‐reported outcome measure developmentquality of lifestrokevisual impairment

Identifiers

PMID29484260
PMCPMC5822587
OpenAlexW2726872953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.