Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada; Department of Medical Imaging, The University of Toronto, 263 McCaul Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON M5T 1W7, Canada; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, The University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 4th floor, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada.
Child Health Evaluative Sciences Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 1X8, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. RESULTS: About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. CONCLUSION: Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required.
目的：探讨 Delphi 研究中如何操作共识以及共识在确定这些研究结果中的作用。
研究设计与设置：对 2000 年至 2009 年间在两个大型多学科数据库（ISI Web of Science（Thompson Reuters，纽约，NY）和 Scopus（Elsevier，阿姆斯特丹，NL））中随机抽取的 100 篇英文 Delphi 研究进行系统回顾。
结果：约有 98 项 Delphi 研究旨在评估共识，但只有 72 项研究（64 项先验）提供了共识的定义。最常见的共识定义是百分比一致性（25 项研究），中位数阈值为 75%以定义共识。尽管 86 项研究的作者得出了达成共识的结论，但只有 42 项研究先验（设定了阈值）指定了共识。只有在 23 项研究中，共识的达成与停止 Delphi 研究的决定有关，70 项研究在指定的轮数后结束。
结论：尽管共识通常被认为是 Delphi 过程的主要重要性，但共识的定义差异很大且报告不佳。需要改进 Delphi 研究方法报告的标准。
Health Technol Assess. 2001
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-1-16
Health Technol Assess. 2001
Health Technol Assess. 2006-9
Br J Dermatol. 2025-3-18
Br J Surg. 2025-9-2
Zotero 插件