Association Française pour le Dépistage et la Prévention des Handicaps de l'Enfant, Paris, France; Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Robert Debré, CF Center, Université Paris 7, Paris, France.
Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
J Cyst Fibros. 2015 Nov;14(6):706-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2015.01.001. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
Newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) results in the recognition of a number of infants with a positive NBS result, but an inconclusive diagnosis. Varied practice exists with respect to the management of these infants.
A Delphi consensus approach was used to determine agreement on statements generated by a core group of specialists. A designation (naming) exercise was required after Round 1 and further expert opinion was sought to guide that process. After Round 2, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of attrition on subsequent agreement levels.
Infants were divided into group A (normal sweat chloride and two CFTR mutations, at least one of which has unclear phenotypic consequences) and group B (intermediate sweat chloride and one or no CFTR mutations). 32 statements were produced for Round 1 and 24 achieved consensus. After Round 1, a designation exercise was undertaken and the term "CF Screen Positive, Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID)" was suggested for Round 2. Agreement was achieved for this statement and for all other statements aside from the need for routine respiratory culture, on which there was divided opinion. The core group advocated local practice for this issue. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated that consensus for Round 2 was achieved by change in opinion rather than attrition.
We have generated a new designation and statements to guide the management of infants with CFSPID through a robust international Delphi process. These statements will be a valuable tool for CF teams and will improve the consistency of management of these infants.
新生儿筛查(NBS)可发现一些 CF 阳性但诊断不明确的婴儿。对于这些婴儿的管理存在不同的做法。
采用 Delphi 共识方法来确定核心专家组生成的声明的一致性。在第一轮之后需要进行命名练习,并进一步征求专家意见以指导该过程。在第二轮之后,进行了敏感性分析,以评估淘汰对后续一致性水平的影响。
婴儿分为 A 组(正常汗液氯化物和两个 CFTR 突变,至少一个具有不明确的表型后果)和 B 组(中间汗液氯化物和一个或没有 CFTR 突变)。第一轮产生了 32 条声明,第二轮有 24 条达成共识。第一轮后,进行了命名练习,建议将“CF 筛查阳性,不确定诊断(CFSPID)”用于第二轮。除了对常规呼吸培养的必要性存在分歧意见外,对这一说法以及所有其他说法都达成了一致意见,而核心小组主张针对这一问题采用当地做法。敏感性分析表明,第二轮的共识是通过改变意见而不是淘汰来实现的。
我们通过强有力的国际 Delphi 流程生成了一个新的命名和声明,以指导 CFSPID 婴儿的管理。这些声明将是 CF 团队的宝贵工具,并将提高对这些婴儿的管理的一致性。