ArticleDisaster medicine and public health preparedness2024
SDMPH 10-year Anniversary Conference Modified Delphi Study.
Article in Disaster medicine and public health preparedness, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe SDMPH 10-year anniversary conference created an opportunity for a researcher to present at a professional association conference to advance their research by seeking consensus of statements using Delphi methodology.
methodsConference attendees and SDMPH members who did not attend the conference were identified as Delphi experts. Experts rated their agreement of each statement on a 7- point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation < = 1. Presenters submitted statements relevant to advancing their research to the authors to edit to fit Delphi statement formatting.Statements attaining consensus were included in the final report after the first round. Those not attaining consensus moved to the second round in which experts were shown the mean response of the expert panel and their own response for opportunity to reconsider their rating for that round. If reconsideration attained consensus, these statements were included in the final report. This process repeated in a third and final round.
results37 Experts agreed to participate in the first round; 35 completed the second round, and 34 completed the third round; 35 statements attained consensus; 3 statements did not attain consensus.
conclusionsA Delphi technique was used to establish expert consensus of statements submitted by the SDMPH conference presenters to guide their future education, research, and training.
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.