ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Integrating real-time polling into modified Delphi methodology: lessons from a consensus study on cardiac implantable electronic device remote monitoring.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Delphi technique is widely used to develop consensus among experts, particularly in clinical guideline development. However, traditional Delphi methods can be time-consuming, resource-intensive, and challenging to implement across geographically dispersed regions. This study presents a novel adaptation of the modified Delphi method using real-time polling software to enhance efficiency, engagement, and consensus-building.
methodsWe conducted a four-round modified Delphi study involving clinicians across Australia and New Zealand. Real-time polling software (Mentimeter) was integrated into two rounds, enabling anonymous voting, immediate display of aggregated results, and iterative discussion during hybrid meetings. The method was applied to develop clinical appropriateness recommendations for remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), serving as an exemplar for broader methodological innovation.
resultsFifty-seven participants completed Round 1, with sustained engagement across subsequent rounds. Real-time polling facilitated consensus on multiple recommendations within a single session, reducing study duration and enhancing participant interaction. Anonymity was preserved throughout, and geographic barriers were mitigated through hybrid participation. The approach enabled efficient refinement of recommendations and supported broad expert input.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the feasibility and value of integrating real-time polling platforms into modified Delphi studies. The method offers a scalable, cost-effective, and accessible alternative to traditional approaches, particularly suited to time-sensitive research and geographically dispersed panels.
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.