ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Matching the right study design to decision-maker questions: Results from a Delphi study.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. 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.
- Development of a Child Articulation Screening Test Within Digital Therapeutics: Delphi Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Consensus for the most suitable trial design to assess therapy for rare vascular malformations: a Delphi study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Building national health research agendas and defining research questions.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research evidence can play an important role in each stage of decision-making, evidence-support systems play a key role in aligning the demand for and supply of evidence. This paper provides guidance on what type of study designs most suitably address questions asked by decision-makers. This study used a two-round online Delphi approach, including methodological experts in different areas, disciplines, and geographic locations. Participants prioritized study designs for each of 40 different types of question, with a Kendall's W greater than 0.6 and reaching statistical significance (p<0.05) considered as a consensus. For each type of question, we sorted the final rankings based on their median ranks and interquartile ranges, and listed the four study designs with the highest median ranks. Participants provided 29 answers in the two rounds of the Delphi, and reached a consensus for 28 (out of the 40) questions (eight in the first round and 20 in the second). Participants achieved a consensus for 8 of 15 questions in stage I (clarifying a societal problem, its causes, and potential impacts), 12 of 13 in stage II (finding options to address a problem) and four of six in each of stages III (implementing or scaling-up an option) and IV (monitoring implementation and evaluating impact). This paper provides guidance on what study designs are more suitable to give insights on 28 different types of questions. Decision-makers, evidence intermediaries (, researchers and funders can use this guidance to make better decisions on what type of study design to commission, use or fund when answering specific needs.
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.