大多数报告指南并非采用德尔菲法制定：报告指南的系统评价。

The majority of reporting guidelines are not developed with the Delphi method: a systematic review of reporting guidelines.

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Seichiryo Hospital, Tsurumai 4-16-27, Showa-ku, Nagoya 466-0064, Japan; Department of Psychiatry, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsurumai-cho 65, Showa-ku, Nagoya 466-8560, Japan; Systematic Review Workshop Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Japan.

Systematic Review Workshop Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Japan; Department of Healthcare Epidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine and Public Health, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan; Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, Kyoritsu Hospital, Chuo-cho 16-5, Kawanishi 666-0016, Japan.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;124:50-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.010. Epub 2020 Apr 14.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.010

PMID:32302679

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Previous guidance of reporting guidelines recommends incorporating the Delphi method to integrate the opinions of experts for consensus when developing reporting guidelines. The purpose of this study was to clarify whether reporting guidelines typically use the Delphi method, what factors may be associated with the use of Delphi, and the reporting quality of Delphi.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all reporting guidelines (n = 244) in the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network published after January 1, 2011. We assessed the trends and factors associated with conducting Delphi and the reporting quality of Delphi against current reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 244, 62 (25%) used Delphi for consensus building. The proportion of reporting guidelines that used Delphi was less than 10% in 2011 and 2012 and 29% in 2019. The year of publication, number of authors, and multiple and simultaneous publications were associated with the use of Delphi. The reporting quality of the Delphi method was moderate in most reporting guidelines developed with Delphi.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of Delphi in reporting guidelines is insufficient. Users and reviewers should carefully appraise the consensus building in the guidelines.

PROTOCOL AND REGISTRATION

We applied a prespecified protocol to conduct this study (Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:e024942). The study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) (Trial registration number: UMIN000032685, URL: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000037271).

摘要

目的

先前的报告指南制定指南建议采用德尔菲（Delphi）法来整合专家意见以达成共识。本研究旨在阐明报告指南是否通常采用德尔菲法，可能与使用德尔菲法相关的因素，以及德尔菲法的报告质量。

研究设计和设置

我们纳入了 2011 年 1 月 1 日之后在 Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) 网络上发表的所有报告指南（n=244）。我们评估了针对当前报告指南进行德尔菲法的趋势和相关因素，以及德尔菲法的报告质量。

结果

在 244 项中，有 62 项（25%）使用德尔菲法达成共识。2011 年和 2012 年使用德尔菲法的报告指南比例低于 10%，而 2019 年则为 29%。发表年份、作者数量、多次和同时发表与使用德尔菲法相关。采用德尔菲法制定的大多数报告指南的德尔菲法报告质量为中等。

结论

报告指南中使用德尔菲法的情况不足。使用者和审查者应仔细评估指南中的共识建立情况。

方案和注册

我们应用了预设方案来进行这项研究（Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library. BMJ Open. 2019; 9:e024942）。该研究已在大学医院医疗信息网络临床试验注册中心（UMIN-CTR）注册（试验注册号：UMIN000032685，网址：https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000037271）。