Correction: CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: PLOS ONE Staff
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5148105 | biostudies-literature | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction: CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children.
PloS one 20161209 12
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158753.]. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments in children. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicine and the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them. Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representing ten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatrics and child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46 statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing on this topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a seven-point scale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the first two authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus. The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation (round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percent for 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their response with written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resulting consensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and a concluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.
| S-EPMC4938414 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology.The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities.We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term 'Language Disorder' is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, 'Developmental Language Disorder' (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability.This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.
| S-EPMC5638113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002102.].
| S-EPMC10501557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.
| S-EPMC9646517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Smartphone apps can be a tool to facilitate independent medication management among persons with developmental disabilities. At present, multiple medication management apps exist in the market, but only 1 has been specifically designed for persons with developmental disabilities. Before initiating further app development targeting this population, input from stakeholders including persons with developmental disabilities, caregivers, and professionals regarding the most preferred features should be obtained.The aim of this study was to identify medication management app features that are suitable to promote independence in the medication management process by young adults with developmental disabilities using a Delphi consensus method.A compilation of medication management app features was performed by searching the iTunes App Store, United States, in February 2016, using the following terms: adherence, medication, medication management, medication list, and medication reminder. After identifying features within the retrieved apps, a final list of 42 features grouped into 4 modules (medication list, medication reminder, medication administration record, and additional features) was included in a questionnaire for expert consensus rating. A total of 52 experts in developmental disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, caregivers, and professionals, were invited to participate in a 3-round Delphi technique. The purpose was to obtain consensus on features that are preferred and suitable to promote independence in the medication management process among persons with developmental disabilities. Consensus for the first, second, and third rounds was defined as ≥90%, ≥80%, and ≥75% agreement, respectively.A total of 75 responses were received over the 3 Delphi rounds-30 in the first round, 24 in the second round, and 21 in the third round. At the end of the third round, cumulative consensus was achieved for 60% (12/20) items in the medication list module, 100% (3/3) in the medication reminder module, 67% (2/3) in the medication administration record module, and 63% (10/16) in the additional features module. In addition to the medication list, medication reminder, and medication administration record features, experts selected the following top 3 most important additional features: automatic refills through pharmacies; ability to share medication information from the app with providers; and ability to share medication information from the app with family, friends, and caregivers. The top 3 least important features included a link to an official drug information source, privacy settings and password protection, and prescription refill reminders.Although several mobile apps for medication management exist, few are specifically designed to support persons with developmental disabilities in the complex medication management process. Of the 42 different features assessed, 64% (27/42) achieved consensus for inclusion in a future medication management app. This study provides information on the features of a medication management app that are most important to persons with developmental disabilities, caregivers, and professionals.
| S-EPMC5990856 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe lack of agreement regarding what constitutes successful treatment for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) makes it difficult to compare the different strategies of management that are used in clinical practice and in research studies.Questions/purposesThe aims of this study were to create a consensus definition for success after PJI treatment, and to provide a universal, multidimensional framework for reporting of studies regarding PJI treatment.MethodsA two-round basic Delphi method was used to reach a consensus definition. We invited 159 international experts (orthopaedic surgeons, infectious disease specialists, and clinical researchers) from 17 countries to participate; 59 participated in the first round, and 42 participated in the second round. The final definition consisted of all statements that achieved strong agreement (80% or greater of participants considering a criterion relevant for defining success).ResultsThe consensus definition of a successfully treated PJI is: (1) infection eradication, characterized by a healed wound without fistula, drainage, or pain, and no infection recurrence caused by the same organism strain; (2) no subsequent surgical intervention for infection after reimplantation surgery; and (3) no occurrence of PJI-related mortality (by causes such as sepsis, necrotizing fasciitis). The Delphi panel agreed to defining midterm results as those reported 5 or more years after the definitive PJI surgery, and long-term results as those reported 10 or more years after surgery. Although no consensus was reached on the definition of short-term results, 71% of the participants agreed that 2 years after the definitive PJI surgery is acceptable to define it.ConclusionsThis multidimensional definition of success after PJI treatment may be used to report and compare results of treatment of this catastrophic complication.Level of evidenceLevel V, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC3676607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe absence of consensus for outcomes in pediatric antibiotic trials is a major barrier to research harmonization and clinical translation. We sought to develop expert consensus on study outcomes for clinical trials of children with mild community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).MethodsApplying the Delphi method, a multispecialty expert panel ranked the importance of various components of clinical response and treatment failure outcomes in children with mild CAP for use in research. During Round 1, panelists suggested additional outcomes in open-ended responses that were added to subsequent rounds of consensus building. For Rounds 2 and 3, panelists were provided their own prior responses and summary statistics for each item in the previous round. The consensus was defined by >70% agreement.ResultsThe expert panel determined that response to and failure of treatment should be addressed at a median of 3 days after initiation. Complete or substantial improvement in fever, work of breathing, dyspnea, tachypnea when afebrile, oral intake, and activity should be included as components of adequate clinical response outcomes. Clinical signs and symptoms including persistent or worsening fever, work of breathing, and reduced oral intake should be included in treatment failure outcomes. Interventions including receipt of parenteral fluids, supplemental oxygen, need for high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, and change in prescription of antibiotics should also be considered in treatment failure outcomes.ConclusionsClinical response and treatment failure outcomes determined by the consensus of this multidisciplinary expert panel can be used for pediatric CAP studies to provide objective data translatable to clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9969329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLocal treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership.Methods and materialsA multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating "agree" or "strongly agree" with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement.ResultsSeventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3).ConclusionsConsensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation.
| S-EPMC9127274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo establish consensus on follow-up (FU) after focal therapy (FT) in renal masses. To formulate recommendations to aid in clinical practice and research.MethodsKey topics and questions for consensus were identified from a systematic literature research. A Web-based questionnaire was distributed among participants selected based on their contribution to the literature and/or known expertise. Three rounds according to the Delphi method were performed online. Final discussion was conducted during the "8th International Symposium on Focal Therapy and Imaging in Prostate and Kidney Cancer" among an international multidisciplinary expert panel.ResultsSixty-two participants completed all three rounds of the online questionnaire. The panel recommended a minimum follow-up of 5 years, preferably extended to 10 years. The first FU was recommended at 3 months, with at least two imaging studies in the first year. Imaging was recommended biannually during the second year and annually thereafter. The panel recommended FU by means of CT scan with slice thickness ≤3 mm (at least three phases with excretory phase if suspicion of collecting system involvement) or mpMRI. Annual checkup for pulmonary metastasis by CT thorax was advised. Outside study protocols, biopsy during follow-up should only be performed in case of suspicion of residual/persistent disease or radiological recurrence.ConclusionsThe consensus led to clear FU recommendations after FT of renal masses supported by a multidisciplinary expert panel. In spite of the low level of evidence, these recommendations can guide clinicians and create uniformity in the follow-up practice and for clinical research purposes.
| S-EPMC5114314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare and highly aggressive cutaneous neuroendocrine carcinoma. The MCC incidence rate has rapidly grown over the last years, with Italy showing the highest increase among European countries. This malignancy has been the focus of active scientific research over the last years, focusing mainly on pathogenesis, new therapeutic trials and diagnosis. A national expert board developed 28 consensus statements that delineated the evolution of disease management and highlighted the paradigm shift towards the use of immunological strategies, which were then presented to a national MCC specialists panel for review. Sixty-five panelists answered both rounds of the questionnaire. The statements were divided into five areas: a high level of agreement was reached in the area of guidelines and multidisciplinary management, even if in real life the multidisciplinary team was not always represented by all the specialists. In the diagnostic pathway area, imaging played a crucial role in diagnosis and initial staging, planning for surgery or radiation therapy, assessment of treatment response and surveillance of recurrence and metastases. Concerning diagnosis, the usefulness of Merkel cell polyomavirus is recognized, but the agreement and consensus regarding the need for cytokeratin evaluation appears greater. Regarding the areas of clinical management and follow-up, patients with MCC require customized treatment. There was a wide dispersion of results and the suggestion to increase awareness about the adjuvant radiation therapy. The panelists unanimously agreed that the information concerning avelumab provided by the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study is adequate and reliable and that the expanded access program data could have concrete clinical implications. An immunocompromised patient with advanced MCC can be treated with immunotherapy after multidisciplinary risk/benefit assessment, as evidenced by real-world analysis and highlighted in the guidelines. A very high consensus regarding the addition of radiotherapy to treat the ongoing focal progression of immunotherapy was observed. This paper emphasizes the importance of collaboration and communication among the interprofessional team members and encourages managing patients with MCC within dedicated multidisciplinary teams. New insights in the treatment of this challenging cancer needs the contribution of many and different experts.
| S-EPMC9198700 | biostudies-literature