School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Palliat Med. 2010 Jul;24(5):462-8. doi: 10.1177/0269216310368452. Epub 2010 May 25.
To establish consensus among palliative care researchers on the priorities for prognostication research.
A nominal group technique was employed involving palliative care researchers attending a workshop within a scientific meeting on prognostication. Participants worked in small facilitated groups to generate future research questions which were amalgamated and rated according to importance.
Twenty-five meeting delegates took part in the workshop including 10 palliative care physicians and four nurses, one dietician, and 10 academic researchers, all of whom had experience and/or interest in prognosis research. A total of 40 research questions were generated and after prioritization ratings, the top five questions were: (1) How valid are prognostic tools? (=2) Can we use prognostic criteria as entry criteria for research? (=2) How do we judge the impact of a prognostic score in clinical practice? (4) What is the best way of presenting survival data to patients? (5) What is the most user-friendly validated tool?
Although a wide range of research questions relating to prognostication were identified, the strongest priority to emerge from the consensus data concerned the validity of prognostic tools. Further research to validate existing tools is essential to ensure their clinical value.
在姑息治疗研究人员中就预后研究的优先事项达成共识。
采用名义群体技术，让参加预后专题科学会议的姑息治疗研究人员参加一个研讨会。与会者分组进行讨论，提出未来的研究问题，然后将这些问题进行合并，并根据重要性进行评分。
共有 25 名会议代表参加了研讨会，包括 10 名姑息治疗医生和 4 名护士、1 名营养师和 10 名学术研究人员，他们都有预后研究的经验和/或兴趣。共提出了 40 个研究问题，经过优先排序评分，排名前五的问题是：（1）预后工具的有效性如何？（=2）我们能否将预后标准作为研究的纳入标准？（=2）我们如何判断预后评分在临床实践中的影响？（4）向患者展示生存数据的最佳方式是什么？（5）最易用的验证工具是什么？
尽管确定了与预后相关的广泛研究问题，但从共识数据中得出的最优先事项是预后工具的有效性。进一步验证现有工具的研究对于确保其临床价值至关重要。
