Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42757371›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2026

From the Oracle of Delphi to Intensive Care Unit Guidelines: Consensus Building Using the Delphi Method.

Marcus J Schultz, Prashant Nasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Rescue and Pain Medicine, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, HOCH Health Ostschweiz, St. Gallen, Switzerland; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; Department of Anesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Management, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3969-7792
Prashant NasaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine and Anaesthesia, New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom; Department of Intensive Care, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1948-4060

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delphi methodology is increasingly employed in health care, particularly in areas where evidence is limited, ambiguous, or conflicting. Consensus-based approaches are integral to guideline development; however, the processes underpinning consensus are often inadequately described or lack transparency, particularly in relation to mitigating cognitive biases within expert panels. The epistemological principles of the Delphi method-anonymous voting, iteration, and controlled feedback-are designed to minimize group convergence and peer pressure commonly observed in face-to-face discussions. While efforts have been made to improve reporting standards for Delphi studies, there remains a lack of comprehensive guidance and uniform standards for their design and conduct. This viewpoint examines the limitations of consensus methods used in guideline development and highlights how the Delphi methodology can enhance transparency, methodological rigor, and robustness in this process. How to cite this article: Schultz MJ, Nasa P. From the Oracle of Delphi to Intensive Care Unit Guidelines: Consensus Building Using the Delphi Method. Indian J Crit Care Med 2026;30(8):623-627.

Indexed as

Consensus methodsDelphiGuidelinesQualitative researchResearch methods

Identifiers

PMID42757371
PMCPMC13585103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.