INTRODUCTION: Increasing demand for reliable evidence in patient care and its delivery has necessitated the development of several approaches for generating quality evidence. In particular, the solicitation of expert opinion has been recognised as a reliable data collection method. However, there are variations and limitations in study approaches using expert opinion as a method of data collection, thereby necessitating the development of a standardised, novel consensus method. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the characteristics of all studies utilising a "Delphi" or "Modified Delphi" methods between January 2008 and December 2018. A search framework was developed, and the review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 764 studies met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the review. Heterogeneity on core defining characteristics of the constituent study types was observed in this control group. These 764 studies were compared against the four case studies using the Jandhyala method. Four key themes were identified and discussed: Assessment of Forced or Observed consensus, Assessment and reporting of item Awareness and advisor awareness, Minimum expert engagement profile, and Efficiency of Minimum Engagement Profile. CONCLUSIONS: Existing consensus methodologies have undergone significant modifications by successive authors over time, including ones contradicting core principles where an original method had been defined. The Jandhyala method for generating group consensus and awareness is unique in observing consensus and measuring awareness of subject matter across experts. The Jandhyala method also improves upon the traditional Delphi-style methodologies, through the introduction of new insights into awareness of subject matter in the expert group. A wider application of the Jandhyala method is required to corroborate findings from this research.
INTRODUCTION: Increasing demand for reliable evidence in patient care and its delivery has necessitated the development of several approaches for generating quality evidence. In particular, the solicitation of expert opinion has been recognised as a reliable data collection method. However, there are variations and limitations in study approaches using expert opinion as a method of data collection, thereby necessitating the development of a standardised, novel consensus method. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to assess the characteristics of all studies utilising a "Delphi" or "Modified Delphi" methods between January 2008 and December 2018. A search framework was developed, and the review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 764 studies met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the review. Heterogeneity on core defining characteristics of the constituent study types was observed in this control group. These 764 studies were compared against the four case studies using the Jandhyala method. Four key themes were identified and discussed: Assessment of Forced or Observed consensus, Assessment and reporting of item Awareness and advisor awareness, Minimum expert engagement profile, and Efficiency of Minimum Engagement Profile. CONCLUSIONS: Existing consensus methodologies have undergone significant modifications by successive authors over time, including ones contradicting core principles where an original method had been defined. The Jandhyala method for generating group consensus and awareness is unique in observing consensus and measuring awareness of subject matter across experts. The Jandhyala method also improves upon the traditional Delphi-style methodologies, through the introduction of new insights into awareness of subject matter in the expert group. A wider application of the Jandhyala method is required to corroborate findings from this research.
Authors: A J Applebaum; K E Roberts; K Lynch; R Gebert; M Loschiavo; M Behrens; L E Walsh; L C Polacek; E L Diamond; W S Breitbart Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2022-10
Authors: Greg A Jicha; Erin L Abner; Steven E Arnold; Maria C Carrillo; Hiroko H Dodge; Steven D Edland; Keith N Fargo; Howard H Feldman; Larry B Goldstein; James Hendrix; Ruth Peters; Julie M Robillard; Lon S Schneider; Jodi R Titiner; Christopher J Weber Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Paul Blazey; Kay M Crossley; Clare L Ardern; Marienke van Middelkoop; Alex Scott; Karim M Khan Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Caitlin M Dugdale; David M Rubins; Hang Lee; Suzanne M McCluskey; Edward T Ryan; Camille N Kotton; Rocio M Hurtado; Andrea L Ciaranello; Miriam B Barshak; Dustin S McEvoy; Sandra B Nelson; Nesli Basgoz; Jacob E Lazarus; Louise C Ivers; Jennifer L Reedy; Kristen M Hysell; Jacob E Lemieux; Howard M Heller; Sayon Dutta; John S Albin; Tyler S Brown; Amy L Miller; Stephen B Calderwood; Rochelle P Walensky; Kimon C Zachary; David C Hooper; Emily P Hyle; Erica S Shenoy Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 9.079