ArticleMethodsX2026
Indications, procedural standards, and training requirements for flexible nasolaryngoscopy in pulmonology - a Delphi study protocol.
Article in MethodsX, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flexible nasolaryngoscopy (FNL) is a well-established, minimally invasive procedure for assessing the nasal passages, nasopharynx, and larynx. Its role in pulmonology is expanding, particularly for evaluating vocal cord dysfunction/inducible laryngeal obstruction, chronic cough, and other upper airway conditions relevant to the "united airways" model of care. However, no consensus-based guidance currently exists on the indications, procedural standards, or training requirements for FNL performed by pulmonologists. This protocol describes a modified two-round Delphi study that will survey an international, purposively sampled panel of pulmonologists and otolaryngologists via an online platform hosted by Monash University, using a five-point Likert scale and pre-specified consensus thresholds (≥70% agreement). Findings will be discussed in a structured expert roundtable to support interpretation and contextualization. • Establishes expert consensus on clinical indications and contraindications for FNL in pulmonology practice. • Develops consensus on procedural standards, curriculum, and competency requirements for FNL training in pulmonology. • Identifies priority areas for future research to support integration of FNL into pulmonology services.
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.