ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Identifying research areas in peripheral artery disease treatment-a Delphi consensus approach.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe multitude of existing techniques for the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD), as well as newly emerging technologies combined with the diversity of patient profiles highlight the need for further research in this area. We conducted a Delphi consensus study, an established method utilising an iterative approach to reach consensus within a group of experts over several rounds, to identify gaps and new areas of research in the field of PAD.
resultsUsing a four-round Delphi process, we started with 17 statements proposed by an expert panel to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale by EBIR-ES holders. We defined two consensus metrics to measure the agreement within the group: as > 75% concordance or > 60% certainty. Six statements that did not meet this threshold after round 1 underwent further rounds of expert feedback, discussion, and reassessment. Fifty-two EBIR-ES holders evaluated the initial statements and 36 contributed to the final consensus. While certainty was stable across all rounds, an increase in concordance was seen in 4 (67%) statements. As a supplement to the traditional Delphi method, we interpreted the decrease in concordance for 2 (33%) statements as areas in need of further research.
conclusionsThe Delphi consensus method is an effective method for discovering potential research topics. Through iterative feedback, it encourages experts to refine their views and promotes a productive exchange of ideas. We identified the use of filter wires for atherectomy, as well as the comparison between atherectomy devices as key areas needing further research. Moreover, these findings underscore the value of developing formalised, multidisciplinary consensus guidelines to guide clinical practice.
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.