ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2024
Overview for developing Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging: pros and cons.
Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and clinical validation of a Team STEPPS-based discharge planning program for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Trial
- Implementation Readiness for National Cancer Survivorship Care Standards.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Consistency in knee MRI reporting templates: an ISS survey and common data element analysis.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
- International consensus on school health literacy responsiveness: findings from a modified Delphi process.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Development of a Repeat Suicide Risk Management Protocol for Emergency Department Patients With Suicide Attempts: An Exploratory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- The Role of Dexketoprofen/Tramadol in Multimodal Therapy to Prevent Acute Postsurgical and Acute Low Back Pain from Developing into Chronic Pain: A Delphi Consensus Study.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Consensus for the most suitable trial design to assess therapy for rare vascular malformations: a Delphi study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a large language model for clinician-facing preoperative cost-communication preparation in total knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic work-up of lipomatous tumors: a decision-making analysis among European sarcoma centers.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Designing and validating a patient education model for cardiovascular patients: protocol for a multilevel mixed-method study.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review paper offers a concise guide on how to execute Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging. Fundamental to the Delphi methodology are several core principles. First, an initial key element is the selection of experts, known as panelists. Second is the principle of anonymity among participants, ensuring that no single individual or group applies excessive influence over others. Third, the methodology involves iterative rounds where statements are presented repeatedly, allowing for controlled feedback. Lastly, after each round, participants are given insight into the collective panel's previous responses. This knowledge enables them to potentially reconsider and adjust their positions in subsequent rounds, driving towards the group consensus. These principles emphasize the critical role of statistical group responses and the structured interaction inherent in the Delphi approach. Looking at the broader process, the development of Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging unfolds through several stages. It begins with identifying the research field or the consensus statements in question. This is followed by undertaking comprehensive literature research. Subsequently, pertinent questions and their corresponding statements are crafted. The process then moves on to administering anonymous, iterative questionnaire rounds. Feedback, both on an individual and collective level, is provided between the rounds. The process culminates in the summarization and reporting of the finalized Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging.
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.