Diagnostic Interpretation Guidance for Pediatric Enteric Pathogens: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
We sought to develop diagnostic test guidance definitions for pediatric enteric infections to facilitate the interpretation of positive test results in the era of multianalyte molecular diagnostic test platforms.Methods
We employed a systematic, two-phase, modified Delphi consensus process consisting of three web-based surveys and an expert panel face-to-face meeting. In phase 1, we surveyed an advisory panel of North American experts to select pathogens requiring diagnostic test guidance definition development. In phase 2, we convened a 14-member expert panel to develop, refine, and select the final definitions through two web-based questionnaires interspersed with a face-to-face meeting. Both questionnaires asked panelists to rate the degree to which they agreed that if the definition is met the pathogen is likely to be causative of clinical illness.Results
The advisory panel survey identified 19 pathogens requiring definitions. In the expert panel premeeting survey, 13 of the 19 definitions evaluated were rated as being highly likely ("agree" or "strongly agree") to be responsible for acute gastroenteritis symptoms by ≥67% of respondent panel members. The definitions for the remaining six pathogens (Aeromonas, Clostridium difficile, Edwardsiella, nonenteric adenovirus, astrovirus, and Entamoeba histolytica) were indeterminate. After the expert panel meeting, only two of the modified definitions, C. difficile and E. histolytica/dispar, failed to achieve the a priori specified threshold of ≥67% agreement.Conclusions
We developed diagnostic test guidance definitions to assist healthcare providers for 17 enteric pathogens. We identified two pathogens that require further research and definition development.
SUBMITTER: Stang AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6180965 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGuidance on the recommended durations of antibiotic therapy, the use of oral antibiotic therapy, and the need for repeat blood cultures remain incomplete for gram-negative bloodstream infections. We convened a panel of infectious diseases specialists to develop a consensus definition of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections to assist clinicians with management decisions.MethodsPanelists, who were all blinded to the identity of other members of the panel, used a modified Delphi technique to develop a list of statements describing preferred management approaches for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Panelists provided level of agreement and feedback on consensus statements generated and refined them from the first round of open-ended questions through 3 subsequent rounds.ResultsThirteen infectious diseases specialists (7 physicians and 6 pharmacists) from across the United States participated in the consensus process. A definition of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infection was developed. Considerations cited by panelists in determining if a bloodstream infection was uncomplicated included host immune status, response to therapy, organism identified, source of the bacteremia, and source control measures. For patients meeting this definition, panelists largely agreed that a duration of therapy of ~7 days, transitioning to oral antibiotic therapy, and forgoing repeat blood cultures, was reasonable.ConclusionsIn the absence of professional guidelines for the management of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections, the consensus statements developed by a panel of infectious diseases specialists can provide guidance to practitioners for a common clinical scenario.
| S-EPMC8561258 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical care of pediatric sepsis depends on early recognition and basic initial steps and thus focused educational materials for providers in these early phases of care are needed. The authors sought to identify educational goals and establish a framework for those materials. The authors conducted a Delphi process to create consensus educational goals for the recognition and treatment of pediatric sepsis, focused on the needs of emergency and acute care providers. Experts in pediatric sepsis quality improvement and education were recruited. In each round the experts determined if a particular goal was appropriate for inclusion and provided edits if required. Free-text responses and additional goals were accepted. The primary author deidentified and collated the responses and distributed an updated list of goals prior to each round. Five experts participated in the Delphi process. After three rounds the panelists unanimously agreed on 14 educational goals. These goals include three on recognition, five on early treatment, three on treatment response, and three on continued treatment. Using a Delphi process the authors established a list of educational goals for pediatric sepsis care. The experts largely agreed upon the initial set of goals and quickly came to consensus on the majority of topics. This highlights a foundation for any future educational interventions. In addition to creating content standards for pediatric sepsis education, this Delphi process represents a useful tool that may be adaptable to educational content development in other topics.
| S-EPMC6194036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is wide variability of transfusion practices for children with hemorrhagic injuries across trauma centers. We are planning a multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children with hemorrhage. Standardization of transfusion practices across sites is important to minimize confounding. Therefore, we sought to generate consensus-based transfusion guidelines for the trial.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi process utilizing a multi-site, multi-disciplinary panel of experts to develop our transfusion guidelines. A survey of 23 clinical categories on various aspects of transfusion practices was developed and distributed via SurveyMonkey®. Statements were graded on a 5-point Likert scale ("Strongly agree" to "This intervention may be harmful"). Statements were accepted if ≥ 80% of the panelists rated the statement as "Strongly agree" or "Agree". After each round, the responses were calculated and the results included on subsequent rounds.Results35 panelists from four pediatric trauma centers participated in the study, including 11 (31%) pediatric EM physicians, 8 (23%) pediatric trauma surgeons, 5 (14%) transfusionists, 5 (14%) pediatric anesthesiologists, and 6 (17%) pediatric critical care physicians (range of 8 to 10 from each clinical site). Four survey iterations were performed. In total 176 statements were rated and 39 were accepted by criteria across all 23 categories. An rational algorithm for transfusion in trauma was then developed.ConclusionsWe successfully developed transfusion guidelines for various aspects of the management of children with hemorrhagic injuries using a modified Delphi process with broad interdisciplinary participation. We anticipate implementation of these guidelines will help minimize heterogeneity of transfusion practices across clinical sites for the upcoming clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children with hemorrhage.
| S-EPMC8130983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Current practice to diagnose idiopathic orbital inflammation (IOI) is inconsistent, leading to frequent misdiagnosis of other orbital entities, including cancer. By specifying criteria, diagnosis of orbital inflammation will be improved. Objective:To define a set of criteria specific for the diagnosis of IOI. Design, Setting, and Participants:A 3-round modified Delphi process with an expert panel was conducted from June 8, 2015, to January 25, 2016. Fifty-three orbital scientist experts, identified through membership in the Orbital Society, were invited to participate in on online survey and they scored, using 5-point Likert scales, items that are eligible as diagnostic criteria from the literature and from personal experience. The items were clustered around the anatomic subtypes of IOI: idiopathic dacryoadenitis and idiopathic orbital fat inflammation (2 nonmyositic IOIs), and idiopathic orbital myositis (myositic IOI). Items with dissensus were rescored in the second round, and all items with consensus (median, ?4; interquartile range, ?1) were ranked by importance in the third round. Main Outcomes and Measures:Consensus on items to be included in the criteria. Results:Of the 53 experts invited to participate, a multinational panel of 35 (66%) individuals with a mean (SD) years of experience of 31 (11) years were included. Consensus was achieved on 7 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 5 of 7 pathologic items related to diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI, and 11 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 1 of 5 pathologic items for myositic IOI. There was agreement among panelists to focus on surgical tissue biopsy results in the diagnosis of nonmyositic IOI and on a trial with systemic corticosteroids in myositic IOI. Panelists agreed that a maximum number of 30 IgG4-positive plasma cells per high-power field in the orbital tissue is compatible with the diagnosis of IOI. Conclusions and Relevance:An international panel of experts endorsed consensus diagnostic criteria of IOI. These criteria define a level of exclusion suggested for diagnosis and include tissue biopsy for lesions not confined to the extraocular muscles. This consensus is a step toward developing guidelines for the management of IOI, which needs to be followed by validation studies of the criteria.
| S-EPMC5710199 | 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:ObjectiveTo evaluate health professionals' agreement with components of published diagnostic criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) in order to guide the development of standard diagnostic guidelines for Australia.DesignA modified Delphi process was used to assess agreement among health professionals with expertise or experience in FASD screening or diagnosis. An online survey, which included 36 Likert statements on diagnostic methods, was administered over two survey rounds. For fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), health professionals were presented with concepts from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), University of Washington (UW), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), revised IOM and Canadian diagnostic criteria. For partial FAS (PFAS), alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder (ARND), and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBD), concepts based on the IOM and the Canadian diagnostic criteria were compared.Setting/participants130 Australian and 9 international health professionals.ResultsOf 139 health professionals invited to complete the survey, 103 (74.1%) responded, and 74 (53.2%) completed one or more questions on diagnostic criteria. We found consensus agreement among participants on the diagnostic criteria for FAS, with the UW criteria most commonly endorsed when compared with all other published criteria for FAS. When health professionals were presented with concepts based on the Canadian and IOM diagnostic criteria, we found consensus agreement but no clear preference for either the Canadian or IOM criteria for the diagnosis of PFAS, and no consensus agreement on diagnostic criteria for ARND. We also found no consensus on the IOM diagnostic criteria for ARBD.ConclusionsParticipants indicated clear support for use of the UW diagnostic criteria for FAS in Australia. These findings should be used to develop guidelines to facilitate improved awareness of, and address identified gaps in the infrastructure for, FASD diagnosis in Australia.
| S-EPMC3488737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To conduct a Delphi survey informing a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. DESIGN:This is a modified three-round Delphi survey delivered online for the first two rounds and in-person for the third round. Questions encompassed three themes: (1) predatory journal definition; (2) educational outreach and policy initiatives on predatory publishing; and (3) developing technological solutions to stop submissions to predatory journals and other low-quality journals. PARTICIPANTS:Through snowball and purposive sampling of targeted experts, we identified 45 noted experts in predatory journals and journalology. The international group included funders, academics and representatives of academic institutions, librarians and information scientists, policy makers, journal editors, publishers, researchers involved in studying predatory journals and legitimate journals, and patient partners. In addition, 198 authors of articles discussing predatory journals were invited to participate in round 1. RESULTS:A total of 115 individuals (107 in round 1 and 45 in rounds 2 and 3) completed the survey on predatory journals and publishers. We reached consensus on 18 items out of a total of 33 to be included in a consensus definition of predatory journals and publishers. We came to consensus on educational outreach and policy initiatives on which to focus, including the development of a single checklist to detect predatory journals and publishers, and public funding to support research in this general area. We identified technological solutions to address the problem: a 'one-stop-shop' website to consolidate information on the topic and a 'predatory journal research observatory' to identify ongoing research and analysis about predatory journals/publishers. CONCLUSIONS:In bringing together an international group of diverse stakeholders, we were able to use a modified Delphi process to inform the development of a definition of predatory journals and publishers. This definition will help institutions, funders and other stakeholders generate practical guidance on avoiding predatory journals and publishers.
| S-EPMC7045268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or?>100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process.
| S-EPMC7150655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Virtual cancer care (i.e., teleoncology) was rapidly adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic to meet the needs of patients with cancer. However, there is a paucity of guidance for clinicians regarding virtual cancer care. We sought to develop consensus-based statements to guide the optimal provision of virtual care for clinicians caring for patients with cancer, using a modified Delphi consensus process with a 29-member panel consisting of an interprofessional group of clinicians caring for patients with cancer and patient representatives. The consensus process consisted of two rounds and one synchronous final consensus meeting. At the end of the modified Delphi process, 62 of 62 statements achieved consensus. Fifty-seven statements reached consensus in the first round of the process. Concerns regarding the ability to convey difficult news virtually and maintaining similar standards as in-person care without disproportionate strain on clinicians and patients were addressed in the consensus process. We achieved interprofessional consensus on virtual cancer care practices. Further research examining the impact of virtual cancer care on person-centred and clinical outcomes are needed to inform practices during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
| S-EPMC8700064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHospitalized pediatric hematology-oncology (PHO) patients are at high risk for critical illness, especially in resource-limited settings. Unfortunately, there are no established quality indicators to guide institutional improvement for these patients. The objective of this study was to identify quality indicators to include in PROACTIVE (PediatRic Oncology cApaCity assessment Tool for IntensiVe carE), an assessment tool to evaluate the capacity and quality of pediatric critical care services offered to PHO patients.MethodsA comprehensive literature review identified relevant indicators in the areas of structure, performance, and outcomes. An international focus group sorted potential indicators using the framework of domains and subdomains. A modified, three-round Delphi was conducted among 36 international experts with diverse experience in PHO and critical care in high-resource and resource-limited settings. Quality indicators were ranked on relevance and actionability via electronically distributed surveys.ResultsPROACTIVE contains 119 indicators among eight domains and 22 subdomains, with high-median importance (≥7) in both relevance and actionability, and ≥80% evaluator agreement. The top five indicators were: (a) A designated PICU area; (b) Availability of a pediatric intensivist; (c) A PHO physician as part of the primary team caring for critically ill PHO patients; (d) Trained nursing staff in pediatric critical care; and (e) Timely PICU transfer of hospitalized PHO patients requiring escalation of care.ConclusionsPROACTIVE is a consensus-derived tool to assess the capacity and quality of pediatric onco-critical care in resource-limited settings. Future endeavors include validation of PROACTIVE by correlating the proposed indicators to clinical outcomes and its implementation to identify service delivery gaps amenable to improvement.
| S-EPMC7541142 | biostudies-literature