Banks Daniel E, Shi Runhua, McLarty Jerry, Cowl Clayton T, Smith Dorsett, Tarlo Susan M, Daroowalla Feroza, Balmes John, Baumann Michael
Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA.
Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA.
Chest. 2009 Jun;135(6):1619-1627. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-1345.
The diagnosis of and criteria for the evaluation of asbestos-related disease impairment remains controversial after decades of research. Assessing agreement among experts who study pneumoconiosis, and diagnose and treat patients with asbestos-related respiratory conditions may be the first step in clarifying clinical and forensic/administrative issues associated with asbestos-related pulmonary conditions.
We conducted a Delphi study, an iterative method of obtaining consensus among a group of experts. An expert panel was identified using an objective, nonbiased algorithm, based on the number of asbestos-related disease publications authored during the preceding 10-year period. Identified experts were invited to participate by accessing an Internet site. Each expert was presented statements developed by the authors regarding the diagnosis or treatment of asbestos-related disease; experts then ranked their degree of agreement or disagreement utilizing an 11-level modified Likert scale for each statement. Each expert was asked to justify their selection and to suggest references in support of their opinion. The Wilcoxon signed rank test and the interquartile range were used to define "consensus." The results of the collective Likert rankings, deidentified comments, and suggested references as well as the initial consensus results were then provided to the participating experts. Each panel member then ranked their extent of agreement with a modified statement for which consensus was not achieved. The process was repeated three times.
Consensus was achieved on all but 9 of 32 statements.
Consensus was not achieved for nine statements. These statements may be topics for future research.
经过数十年的研究,石棉相关疾病损伤的诊断和评估标准仍存在争议。评估研究尘肺病、诊断和治疗石棉相关呼吸道疾病患者的专家之间的一致性,可能是澄清与石棉相关肺部疾病有关的临床和法医/行政问题的第一步。
我们进行了一项德尔菲研究,这是一种在一组专家中达成共识的迭代方法。根据前10年期间撰写的石棉相关疾病出版物数量,使用客观、无偏见的算法确定专家小组。通过访问一个网站邀请确定的专家参与。向每位专家展示作者编写的关于石棉相关疾病诊断或治疗的陈述;专家们然后使用11级修正的李克特量表对每条陈述的同意或不同意程度进行排名。要求每位专家说明其选择的理由,并提供支持其观点的参考文献。采用威尔科克森符号秩检验和四分位间距来定义“共识”。然后将集体李克特排名结果、匿名评论、建议的参考文献以及初步共识结果提供给参与的专家。然后,每个小组成员对未达成共识的修改后陈述的同意程度进行排名。这个过程重复了三次。
32条陈述中除9条外均达成了共识。
九条陈述未达成共识。这些陈述可能是未来研究的主题。