In this section
@article{Webbe:2023:10.1186/s13063-023-07285-1,
author = {Webbe, J and Allin, B and Knight, M and Modi, N and Gale, C},
doi = {10.1186/s13063-023-07285-1},
journal = {Trials},
title = {How to reach agreement: the impact of different analytical approaches to Delphi process results in core outcomes set development},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07285-1},
volume = {24},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR
AB - Background: Core outcomes sets are increasingly used to define research outcomes that are most important for a condition. Different consensus methods are used in the development of core outcomes sets; the most common is the Delphi process. Delphi methodology is increasingly standardised for core outcomes set development, butuncertainties remain. We aimed to empirically test how the use of different summary statistics and consensus criteria impact Delphi process results.Methods: Results from two unrelated child health Delphi processes were analysed. Outcomes were ranked by mean, median, or rate of exceedance, and then pairwisecomparisons were undertaken to analyse whether the rankings were similar. The correlation coefficient for each comparison was calculated, and Bland-Altman plotsproduced. Youden’s index was used to assess how well the outcomes ranked highest by each summary statistic matched the final core outcomes sets. Consensus criteria identified in a review of published Delphi processes were applied to the results of the two child-health Delphi processes. The size of the consensus setsproduced by different criteria was compared, and Youden’s index was used to assess how well the outcomes that met different criteria matched the final core outcomes sets.Results: Pairwise comparisons of different summary statistics produced similar correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots showed that comparisons involving ranked medians had wider variation in the ranking. No difference in Youden’s index for the summary statistics was found.Different consensus criteria produced widely different sets of consensus outcomes (Range: 5-44 included outcomes). They also showed differing abilities to identify core outcomes (Youden’s index Range: 0.32-0.92). The choice of consensus criteria had a large impact on Delphi results.Discussion: The use of different summary statistics is unlikely to affect how outcomes are ranked during a Delphi process: mean, media
AU - Webbe,J
AU - Allin,B
AU - Knight,M
AU - Modi,N
AU - Gale,C
DO - 10.1186/s13063-023-07285-1
PY - 2023///
SN - 1745-6215
TI - How to reach agreement: the impact of different analytical approaches to Delphi process results in core outcomes set development
T2 - Trials
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07285-1
UR - https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-023-07285-1
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/104131
VL - 24
ER -
Neonatal Medicine Research Group and Neonatal Data Analysis Unit Manager
(All research related queries)
Room G 4.3
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
ndau@imperial.ac.uk
+44 (0)20 3315 5841
Research Communications Lead
(Communications related queries only)
dsakyi@imperial.ac.uk
