ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Achieving consensus on the curriculum system for central sterile supply department nurses: a modified Delphi study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Enhancing the core competencies of Central Sterile Supply Department (CSSD) nurses is of paramount importance, as these professionals serve as the frontline defense against healthcare-associated infections. Accordingly, this study aimed to develop an evidence-based training framework for CSSD specialists to provide a standardized benchmark for continuous professional development in the CSSD field. Methods: The initial development of the CSSD nurse training system involved an extensive literature review and expert group discussions. From April to June 2024, two rounds of Delphi surveys were conducted, consulting 25 experts in relevant fields from nine provinces across China to reach consensus on the index system. Descriptive statistics were employed for data analysis. Consensus thresholds were defined as a mean score of ≥3.5, a coefficient of variation of <0.25, and a full-score percentage of ≥70%. Results: The response rates for the two rounds of expert consultation were 92.59 and 100%, respectively, with an expert authority coefficient of 0.912. In the first round, 13 items were revised, 4 deleted, 2 repositioned, and 20 added; no changes were made in the second round. This resulted in a training process index system comprising 5 first-level, 12 s-level, and 50 third-level indicators, and a training content index system comprising 4 first-level, 24 s-level, and 107 third-level indicators. Kendall's W coefficients for the training process and training content increased from 0.199 and 0.187 in the first round to 0.227 and 0.218 in the second round ( Conclusion: This training index system is both scientifically sound and reliable, offering a valuable reference for specialist nurse selection, curriculum design, and quality assurance in CSSD training programs.
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.