Trial reportTrials2023
Rating versus ranking in a Delphi survey: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for the Evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring Interventions Using the Sextuple Aim: Modified Delphi Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessing the importance and feasibility of quality measures for chiropractic care: a national survey of U.S. chiropractors.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Article
- Article
- Conducting Delphi surveys in medical education research.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Identifying social prescribing core outcomes using a Delphi approach: findings and future directions.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Health Care AI Adoption Among Those Living in Wales and Working in Health Care in Wales: Online Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Older Adults in Asia: A Modified Delphi Expert Consensus on Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Prevention.Pulmonary therapy · 2025Article
- Resolving Challenges in HIV Cure-Related Research: Protocol for a Modified Delphi Consensus-Building Process.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Priorities for addressing mental health conditions and substance use disorders in prisons in sub-Saharan Africa: expert consensus from a Delphi panel.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2025Review
- Development and application of a core competency evaluation index system for pediatric asthma specialist nurses in China: a mixed-method study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- How to Refine and Prioritize Key Performance Indicators for Digital Health Interventions: Tutorial on Using Consensus Methodology to Enable Meaningful Evaluation of Novel Digital Health Interventions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Co-Producing Peritoneal Dialysis Nursing Sensitive Indicators for Quality Care: A Multinational Consensus Building Design.Journal of renal care · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Establishing Priorities for Improving Data Collection and Measurement of Mental Health and Well-Being of Adolescents With Special Educational Needs Within Nonmainstream Schools: Protocol for a Delphi Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- The Development of Principles for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Preclinical Spinal Cord Research: A Modified Delphi Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Delphi technique has steeply grown in popularity in health research as a structured approach to group communication process. Rating and ranking are two different procedures commonly used to quantify participants' opinions in Delphi surveys. We explored the influence of using a rating or ranking approach on item prioritization (main outcome), questionnaire completion time, and evaluation of task difficulty in a Delphi survey aimed at identifying priorities for the organization of primary cardiovascular care.
methodsA randomized controlled parallel group trial was embedded in a three-round online Delphi survey. After an "open" first round, primary care patients, trained patient partners, and primary care clinicians from seven primary care practices were allocated 1:1 to a rating or ranking assessment group for the remainder of the study by stratified permuted block randomization, with strata based on participants' gender and status. Agreement on item prioritization between the experimental groups was measured by calculating Krippendorff's alpha reliability coefficient on the aggregate rank order of items in each group after the final round. Self-reported ease or difficulty with the assessment task was measured with the Single Ease Question.
resultsThirty-six panelists (13 clinic patients, 7 patient partners, 16 clinicians; 60% females) were randomized to the rating (n = 18) or ranking (n = 18) group, with 30 (83%) completing all rounds. Both groups identified the same highest priorities from a set of 41 items, but significant discrepancies were found as early as the seventh top item. There was moderately strong agreement between the priority ordering of top items common to both groups (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.811, 95% CI = 0.669-0.920). A 9-min mean difference to complete the third-round questionnaire in favor of the rating group failed to achieve statistical significance (p = 0.053). Ranking was perceived as more difficult (p < 0.001).
conclusionsA rating or ranking procedure led to modestly similar item prioritization in a Delphi survey, but ranking was more difficult. This study should be replicated with a larger number of participants and with variations in the ranking and rating procedures.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.