ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Diagnosis, management, and prevention of Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever: a Delphi-based consensus study in Türkiye.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a widely distributed viral haemorrhagic fever with expanding geographic range. As new regions encounter the disease, clinicians must make high-stakes decisions despite limited standardised management frameworks. Methods: In this multicentre, modified Delphi study, infectious diseases specialists were recruited from 19 centres in Türkiye via an open call through the professional communication channels of the Turkish Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (known as KLİMİK). Eligibility was determined based on self-reported clinical experience. Eligible participants reported managing more than ten patients with CCHF as primary physicians, with no additional demographic or professional exclusion criteria applied. The Delphi process included three sequential rounds of anonymous online surveys (between Sept 26 2025, and Jan 1, 2026) and an interim structured clarification meeting (Nov 28-29, 2025), to map areas of agreement and heterogeneity across diagnosis, monitoring, therapeutics, and exposure management. Statements were analysed using Likert-scale methodology. Responses were summarised using medians, interquartile ranges, and proportions of agreement. Consensus levels were defined a priori. Findings: Of 45 ID specialists invited to participate in Round 1, 35 completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis (78% response rate). All 35 eligible participants were invited to Round 2, and 32 (91%) completed the questionnaire. All 32 participants completed Round 3, with no attrition between Rounds 2 and 3. All participants reported experience of managing more than ten patients with CCHF; ∼85% of participants reported managing at least 50 confirmed cases. In total, 146 candidate statements were evaluated, of which 72 achieved early consensus in Round 1. Following iterative refinement, 39 of 56 statements (69.6%) met predefined consensus criteria in the final round, including eight with very high agreement and 22 with high agreement. Strong convergence was observed for early molecular testing and risk-based hospitalisation, ribavirin initiation within 4 days of symptom onset in confirmed cases, risk-adapted transfusion strategies guided by bleeding severity, and post-exposure prophylaxis after high-risk occupational exposure. Persistent heterogeneity remained regarding ribavirin initiation beyond the early symptomatic window, immunomodulatory therapies, and transfusion de-escalation strategies in selected scenarios. Interpretation: These findings should not be interpreted as formal guidelines. By transparently quantifying expert agreement and non-consensus, this study synthesises specialist clinical experience from a high incidence country and delineates areas of convergence and ongoing uncertainty relevant to both endemic and newly affected regions. Prospective studies are needed to validate key therapeutic and management strategies identified in this work. Funding: None.
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.