Purpose: To identify areas of consensus and disagreement in the management of paediatric cataract using a modified Delphi approach among individuals recognised for publishing in this field. Design: A modified Delphi method. Participants International paediatric cataract experts with a publishing record in paediatric cataract management. Methods: The process consisted of three rounds of anonymous electronic questionnaires followed by a face-to-face meeting, followed by a fourth anonymous electronic questionnaire. The executive committee created questions to be used for the electronic questionnaires. Questions were designed to have unitbased, multiple choice or true-false answers. The questionnaire included issues related to the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of paediatric cataract. Main outcome measure: Consensus based on 85% of panellists being in agreement for electronic questionnaires or 80% for the face-to-face meeting, and near consensus based on 70%. Results: Sixteen of 22 invited paediatric cataract surgeons agreed to participate. We arrived at consensus or near consensus for 85/108 (78.7%) questions and non-consensus for the remaining 23 (21.3%) questions. Conclusions: Those questions where consensus was not reached highlight areas of either poor evidence or contradicting evidence, and may help investigators identify possible research questions.

Use of the Delphi process in paediatric cataract management / M. Serafino, R.H. Trivedi, A.V. Levin, M..E. Wilson, P. Nucci, S.R. Lambert, K.K. Nischal, D.A. Plager, D. Bremond Gignac, R. Kekunnaya, S. Nishina, N.N. Tehrani, M.C. Ventura. - In: BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY. - ISSN 0007-1161. - 100:5(2016), pp. 611-615. [10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307287]

Use of the Delphi process in paediatric cataract management

P. Nucci;
2016

Abstract

Purpose: To identify areas of consensus and disagreement in the management of paediatric cataract using a modified Delphi approach among individuals recognised for publishing in this field. Design: A modified Delphi method. Participants International paediatric cataract experts with a publishing record in paediatric cataract management. Methods: The process consisted of three rounds of anonymous electronic questionnaires followed by a face-to-face meeting, followed by a fourth anonymous electronic questionnaire. The executive committee created questions to be used for the electronic questionnaires. Questions were designed to have unitbased, multiple choice or true-false answers. The questionnaire included issues related to the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of paediatric cataract. Main outcome measure: Consensus based on 85% of panellists being in agreement for electronic questionnaires or 80% for the face-to-face meeting, and near consensus based on 70%. Results: Sixteen of 22 invited paediatric cataract surgeons agreed to participate. We arrived at consensus or near consensus for 85/108 (78.7%) questions and non-consensus for the remaining 23 (21.3%) questions. Conclusions: Those questions where consensus was not reached highlight areas of either poor evidence or contradicting evidence, and may help investigators identify possible research questions.
adolescent; cataract; child; child, preschool; consensus; humans; infant; cataract extraction; delphi technique; evidence-based medicine; practice patterns, physicians'; ophthalmology; sensory systems; cellular and molecular neuroscience
Settore MED/30 - Malattie Apparato Visivo
2016
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
10. Use of the Delphi process in paediatric cataract management.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 276.18 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
276.18 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/444449
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 44
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 37
social impact