ArticleANZ journal of surgery
Stakeholder Consensus Selection of Data Elements and Indicators for a Pancreatic Cancer Surgical Outcomes Registry in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: Modified Delphi Process.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe data elements and indicators in a clinical quality registry (CQR) contribute towards the utility of its output and should be informed by stakeholder input. In Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand (AANZ), there is no CQR for pancreatic cancer surgery. This study aimed to select data elements and registry aims with stakeholder input.
methodsA three-round modified Delphi consensus process was conducted involving clinicians and consumers. An initial list of data elements was generated through a review of literature, existing international registries, and guidelines. Participants rated the importance of each element using the RAND/UCLA method. In the final round, ≥ 75% consensus was needed for an element to be accepted. Participants rated potential registry aims.
resultsConsumers and clinicians from across AANZ were involved. A total of 66 participants were involved asynchronously across the three rounds (Round 1, n = 33; Round 2, n = 40; Round 3, n = 63), with representatives from consumers, surgery, medical oncology, nutrition, nursing, public health and a consumer organisation. After three rounds, 121 data elements were accepted, and all 9 registry aims were rated with high importance. Of these elements, 54 were classified as quality indicators (structure n = 3, process n = 11, outcome n = 40).
conclusionThe utility of a registry relies on having meaningful and feasible data elements and indicators. Through involvement of key stakeholders in a systematic process, this study has selected data elements and indicators for a proposed AANZ pancreatic cancer surgery CQR. This is an essential step towards establishing such a registry. The next steps will be to pilot the dataset with pancreatic surgery centres across the region, and to establish baseline benchmarks.
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.