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:BackgroundLack 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThis Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.
| S-EPMC5638113 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10501557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEnd-of-life care in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is complex, requiring a balance of ethical, cultural and medical considerations while ensuring comfort and dignity for critically ill patients and their families.AimWe aimed to develop a set of core domains for end-of-life care at Scandinavian ICUs along with corresponding consensus statements from patients, families and multidisciplinary experts.MethodsIn a three-round Delphi study, a multidisciplinary advisory board from Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Denmark, including ICU physicians, ICU nurses, palliative care specialists and a former ICU patient and family, developed potential end-of-life care domains of interest. Specialists with special competence/interest in end-of-life care and clinicians in all five countries were invited to rank these domains according to their importance and provide recommendations within each domain. The advisory board rephrased the recommendations into statements, which were sent out in the second round for participants to rate based on their level of agreement. Statements that did not achieve consensus in the second round were rephrased and redistributed in the third round.ResultsAfter the third Delphi round, 59 statements across 10 domains reached consensus. The domains were: 1. Communication at ICU admission, 2. Withholding and withdrawal of therapy and end-of-life care decisions in the ICU, 3. Meeting religious and spiritual needs and the needs of vulnerable patients in the ICU, 4. Extubation and termination of mechanical ventilation at the end of life in the ICU, 5. Management and monitoring of symptoms at the end of life in the ICU, 6. Continuous sedation at the end of life in the ICU, 7. Indicators for specialist palliative care consultations in the ICU, 8. Patient transfers from the ICU at the end of life, 9. Bereavement care and 10. Debriefing in the ICU following a patient's death.DiscussionWe developed core domains and consensus statements aiming at optimising end-of-life care that considers cultural and ethical nuances. The domains may help to shape end-of-life care guidelines in Scandinavian ICUs.
| S-EPMC11894781 | 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:BackgroundMost oncology trainees are not taught about the needs of older patients, who make up the majority of patients with cancer. Training of health care providers is critical to improve the care of older adults with cancer. There is no consensus about which geriatric oncology (GO) competencies are important for medical oncology trainees. Our objective was to identify GO competencies medical oncology trainees should acquire during training.Materials and methodsA modified Delphi consensus of experts in oncology medical education and GO was conducted. Experts categorized at what training stage proposed competencies should be attained: internal medicine, oncology, or GO training. Consensus was obtained if two thirds of experts agreed on the training stage at which the competency should be attained.ResultsA total of 78 potential competencies were identified, of which 35 (44.9%) proposed competencies were felt to be appropriate to be acquired during oncology training. The majority of the identified competencies pertained to prescribing of systemic therapy (n = 12) and psychosocial and supportive care (n = 13). No competencies related to geriatric assessment were identified for acquisition during oncology training.ConclusionExperts in oncology education and geriatric oncology agreed upon a set of GO competencies appropriate for oncology trainees. These results provide the foundation for developing a GO curriculum for medical oncology trainees and will hopefully lead to better care of older adults with cancer.Implications for practiceThe aging population will drive the projected rise in cancer incidence. Although aging patients make up the majority of patients diagnosed with cancer, oncologists rarely receive training on how to care for them. Training of health care providers is critical to improving the care of older adults with cancer. The results of this study will help form the foundation of developing a geriatric oncology curriculum for medical oncology trainees.
| S-EPMC7356779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScientific evidence on patients with multimorbid type 2 asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) from a united airways disease (UAD) perspective remains scarce, despite the frequent coexistence of these entities. We aimed to generate expert consensus-based recommendations for the management of UAD patients.MethodsUsing a two-round Delphi method, Spanish expert allergists, pulmonologists and otolaryngologists expressed their agreement on 32 statements (52 items) on a 9-point Likert scale, classified as appropriate (median 7-9), uncertain (4-6) or inappropriate (1-3). Consensus was considered when at least two-thirds of the panel scored within the range containing the median.ResultsA panel of 30 experts reached consensus on the appropriateness of 43 out of the 52 (82.7%) items. The usefulness of certain biomarkers (tissue and peripheral blood eosinophil count, serum total IgE, and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) in the identification and follow-up of type 2 inflammation, and assessment of the response to biologics, were agreed. Some of these biomarkers were also associated with disease severity and/or recurrence after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Consensus was achieved on treatment strategies related to the prescription of anti-IL-4/IL-13 or anti-IgE agents, concomitant treatment with systemic corticosteroids, and combining or switching to biologics with a different mechanism of action, considering a number of UAD clinical scenarios.ConclusionWe provide expert-based recommendations to assist in clinical decision-making for the management of patients with multimorbid type 2 asthma and CRSwNP. Specific clinical trials and real-world studies focusing on the single-entity UAD are required to address controversial items.
| S-EPMC10124060 | biostudies-literature
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: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
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