Masahiro Banno1, Yasushi Tsujimoto2, Yuki Kataoka3. 1. 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. Electronic address: solvency@med.nagoya-u.ac.jp. 2. 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. 3. 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; Hospital Care Research Unit, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Higashinaniwa-cho 2-17-77, Amagasaki 660-8550, Japan; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Higashinaniwa-cho 2-17-77, Amagasaki 660-8550, Japan.
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).
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).
Authors: Jack S Nunn; Thomas Shafee; Steven Chang; Richard Stephens; Jim Elliott; Sandy Oliver; Denny John; Maureen Smith; Neil Orr; Jennifer Preston; Josephine Borthwick; Thijs van Vlijmen; James Ansell; Francois Houyez; Maria Sharmila Alina de Sousa; Roan D Plotz; Jessica L Oliver; Yaela Golumbic; Rona Macniven; Samuel Wines; Ann Borda; Håkon da Silva Hyldmo; Pen-Yuan Hsing; Lena Denis; Carolyn Thompson Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2022-07-19
Authors: William T Gattrell; Amrit Pali Hungin; Amy Price; Christopher C Winchester; David Tovey; Ellen L Hughes; Esther J van Zuuren; Keith Goldman; Patricia Logullo; Robert Matheis; Niall Harrison Journal: Res Integr Peer Rev Date: 2022-06-07
Authors: Jan W van der Scheer; Matthew Woodward; Akbar Ansari; Tim Draycott; Cathy Winter; Graham Martin; Karolina Kuberska; Natalie Richards; Ruth Kern; Mary Dixon-Woods Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Esther J van Zuuren; Patricia Logullo; Amy Price; Zbys Fedorowicz; Ellen L Hughes; William T Gattrell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 3.006