Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38842925›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2024

Defining and Risk-Stratifying Immunosuppression (the DESTINIES Study): Protocol for an Electronic Delphi Study.

Meredith Leston, José Ordóñez-Mena, Mark Joy, Simon de Lusignan, Richard Hobbs, Iain McInnes, Lennard Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Meredith LestonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0891-714X
José Ordóñez-MenaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8965-104X
Mark JoyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4974-3724
Simon de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-2641
Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7976-7172
Iain McInnesWolfson Medical School Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6462-4280
Lennard LeeDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8993-8438

Funding

Medical Research Council (MRC)MRC Industrial-CASE Studentship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, there are marked inconsistencies in how immunosuppression is characterized and subdivided into clinical risk groups. This is detrimental to the precision and comparability of disease surveillance efforts-which has negative implications for the care of those who are immunosuppressed and their health outcomes. This was particularly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic; despite collective motivation to protect these patients, conflicting clinical definitions created international rifts in how those who were immunosuppressed were monitored and managed during this period. We propose that international clinical consensus be built around the conditions that lead to immunosuppression and their gradations of severity concerning COVID-19. Such information can then be formalized into a digital phenotype to enhance disease surveillance and provide much-needed intelligence on risk-prioritizing these patients.

objectiveWe aim to demonstrate how electronic Delphi objectives, methodology, and statistical approaches will help address this lack of consensus internationally and deliver a COVID-19 risk-stratified phenotype for "adult immunosuppression."

methodsLeveraging existing evidence for heterogeneous COVID-19 outcomes in adults who are immunosuppressed, this work will recruit over 50 world-leading clinical, research, or policy experts in the area of immunology or clinical risk prioritization. After 2 rounds of clinical consensus building and 1 round of concluding debate, these panelists will confirm the medical conditions that should be classed as immunosuppressed and their differential vulnerability to COVID-19. Consensus statements on the time and dose dependencies of these risks will also be presented. This work will be conducted iteratively, with opportunities for panelists to ask clarifying questions between rounds and provide ongoing feedback to improve questionnaire items. Statistical analysis will focus on levels of agreement between responses.

resultsThis protocol outlines a robust method for improving consensus on the definition and meaningful subdivision of adult immunosuppression concerning COVID-19. Panelist recruitment took place between April and May of 2024; the target set for over 50 panelists was achieved. The study launched at the end of May and data collection is projected to end in July 2024.

conclusionsThis protocol, if fully implemented, will deliver a universally acceptable, clinically relevant, and electronic health record-compatible phenotype for adult immunosuppression. As well as having immediate value for COVID-19 resource prioritization, this exercise and its output hold prospective value for clinical decision-making across all diseases that disproportionately affect those who are immunosuppressed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56271.

Indexed as

COVID-19Delphi TechniqueImmunosuppression TherapyAdultConsensusHumansImmunocompromised HostResearch DesignRisk AssessmentSARS-CoV-2adultclinical consensusclinical riskconsensusCOVIDCOVID-19Delphidisease surveillanceeDelphiimmuneimmunityimmunocompromisedimmunologicalimmunologyimmunosuppressedimmunosuppressed patientimmunosuppressed patientsimmunosuppressionmethodologymethodsphenotypestatisticstatisticalstatisticsstudy designsurveillancevaccines

Identifiers

PMID38842925
PMCPMC11190617

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.