Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39525599›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2024

Overview for developing Delphi-based interdisciplinary consensus statements on imaging: pros and cons.

Tobias Johannes Dietrich, Vasco V Mascarenhas, Luis Cerezal, P Diana Afonso, Iwona Sudoł-Szopińska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Tobias Johannes DietrichRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2979-6471
Vasco V MascarenhasMusculoskeletal Imaging Unit, Imaging Center, Radiology Department, Hospital da Luz, Grupo Luz Saúde, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5451-5021
Luis CerezalRadiology Department, Diagnóstico Médico Cantabria, Santander, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4934-0255
P Diana AfonsoMusculoskeletal Imaging Unit, Imaging Center, Radiology Department, Hospital da Luz, Grupo Luz Saúde, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8716-2655
Iwona Sudoł-SzopińskaDepartment of Radiology, National Institute of Geriatrics, Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2671-3036

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

consensus statementsDelphi surveyimaginginterdisciplinary

Identifiers

PMID39525599
PMCPMC11546895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.