Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37596699›Full record

Trial reportTrials2023

Rating versus ranking in a Delphi survey: a randomized controlled trial.

Claudio Del Grande, Janusz Kaczorowski

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Conducting Delphi surveys in medical education research.GMS journal for medical education · 2026
    Article
  5. 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 · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 · 2024
    Article
  17. 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.

Claudio Del GrandeHealth Innovation and Evaluation Hub, University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre, Saint-Antoine Tower, 850 Saint-Denis Street, Montreal, QC, H2X 0A9, Canada. c.del.grande@umontreal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6261-791X
Janusz KaczorowskiHealth Innovation and Evaluation Hub, University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre, Saint-Antoine Tower, 850 Saint-Denis Street, Montreal, QC, H2X 0A9, Canada.

Funding

Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé 36266
6 · The paper itself

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

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesCommunicationFemaleGroup ProcessesHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportDelphi techniqueHealth services researchPrimary health careRandomized controlled trialRankingRatingReliability

Identifiers

PMID37596699
PMCPMC10436639

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.