Hohmann Erik, Beaufils Philippe, Beiderbeck Daniel, Chahla Jorge, Geeslin Andrew, Hasan Samer, Humphrey-Murto Susan, Hurley Eoghan, LaPrade Robert F, Martetschläger Frank, Matache Bogdan, Moatshe Gilbert, Monllau Juan Carlos, Murray Iain, Niederberger Marlen, Rüetschi Urs, Shang Zhida, Weber Stephen, Wong Ivan, Perry Nicholas P J
Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Burjeel Hospital for Advanced Surgery, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
ESSKA, Centre Medical/Fondation Norbert Metz, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
Arthroscopy. 2025 Mar 27. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2025.03.038.
To conduct a Delphi project to develop guidelines for the design and execution of Delphi studies within medical and surgical specialties.
Open-ended questions in round 1 and open-ended and semi-open questions in round 2 were answered. The results of the first 2 rounds were used to develop a Likert-style questionnaire for round 3. The level of agreement and consensus was defined as 80%. Consensus was further categorized into specific percentage ranges for clarity: 100% unanimous consensus, 90% to 99% very strong consensus, and 80% to 89% consensus.
Consensus was achieved for 35 of 63 items (56%). Unanimous agreement was reached for 4 items (6.3%), while very strong consensus was established for 12 items (19%). Consensus was reached for an additional 19 items (30.1%), and the panel remained undecided on 7 items (11.1%).
Unanimous agreement was reached for iteration, the ability to establish treatment guidelines, a proven track record of panel members, and the requirement for at least 1 steering committee member to be a Delphi expert. Very strong consensus was reached on several key requirements: a clear definition of consensus, controlled feedback between rounds, precise definitions of expert and expertise, and the need for panel members to show experience through publications and clinical practice. Criteria for panel selection should ensure diversity and specialization, with steering committee members being content experts and a minimum of 20 to 30 panel members for broader topics. Regional experts should provide consensus on specific topics only. The steering committee should develop questions, with open-ended questions in round 1 and both types in round 2. Limiting the process to 3 rounds is advisable, aiming for at least 80% consensus in the final round.
Level V, expert opinion.
开展一项德尔菲项目，以制定医学和外科专业领域内德尔菲研究设计与实施的指南。
回答第一轮中的开放式问题以及第二轮中的开放式和半开放式问题。前两轮的结果用于制定第三轮的李克特式问卷。将达成一致和共识的水平定义为80%。为清晰起见，进一步将共识分为特定的百分比范围：100%一致同意的共识、90%至99%的非常强烈的共识以及80%至89%的共识。
63项中的35项（56%）达成了共识。4项（6.3%）达成了一致同意，12项（19%）达成了非常强烈的共识。另外19项（30.1%）达成了共识，7项（11.1%）专家小组仍未做出决定。
在迭代、制定治疗指南的能力、专家小组成员的可靠记录以及至少有1名指导委员会成员为德尔菲专家的要求方面达成了一致同意。在几个关键要求上达成了非常强烈的共识：对共识的明确定义、轮次间的受控反馈、专家和专业知识的精确定义以及专家小组成员通过发表文章和临床实践展示经验的必要性。专家小组选择标准应确保多样性和专业性，指导委员会成员应为内容专家，对于更广泛的主题，专家小组成员至少为20至30名。区域专家仅应就特定主题提供共识。指导委员会应提出问题，第一轮为开放式问题，第二轮为两种类型的问题。建议将该过程限制为3轮，目标是在最后一轮中至少达成80%的共识。
V级，专家意见。
