PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14728333

Delphi rating on the internet.

Aniruddha M Deshpande·Richard N Shiffman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We designed an application to allow respondents to rate components of clinical guidelines on the Internet. Twenty-three invited experts completed the rating followed by a satisfaction survey using a 5-level Likert scale. The experts felt that Web data entry was convenient, acceptable and easily accessible. We conclude that Web-based Delphi rating for consensus development is a convenient and acceptable alternative to the traditional paper-based method.

Explore related subjects

ConsensusDelphi TechniqueInternetPractice Guidelines as TopicJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aniruddha M Deshpande, Richard N Shiffman. 2003. Delphi rating on the internet.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14728333/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Reporting data on homeopathic treatments (RedHot): a supplement to CONSORT.

When homeopathy is tested in clinical trials, understanding and appraisal is likely to be improved if published reports contain details of prescribing strategies and treatments. An international Delphi panel was convened to develop consensus guidelines for reporting homeopathic methods and treatments. The panel agreed 28 treatment- and provider-specific items that supplement the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement items 2, 3, 4 and 19. The authors recommend these for adoption by authors and journals when reporting trials of homeopathy.

Consensus↗
PubMed2007

Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital - a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To assess the agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines of a University Neonatology Department, to evaluate the reasons for potential disagreements and to ascertain whether Cochrane reviews were considered for the guidelines development. METHODS: The recommendations in the reviews and guidelines were compared and classified as being in 'agreement', 'partial agreement' or 'disagreement'. The guideline authors were interviewed for reasons about disagreement and whether Cochrane reviews were considered during the guideline development. RESULTS: Agreement between reviews and guidelines was found for 133 interventions (77%), partial agreement for 31 interventions (18%) and disagreement for nine interventions (5%). Six interventions were recommended in the guidelines, but not in the reviews. Three interventions were recommended in the reviews, but not in the guidelines. Use of consensus statements, evidence on surrogate markers, observational studies, basic immunology and pathophysiological knowledge, expert opinion, economical constraints, reservations about the external validity and unawareness of reviews were reasons for disagreement. Cochrane reviews were rarely (22%) used during the guideline development. CONCLUSION: We found agreement between more than three quarters of Cochrane reviews and neonatal guidelines. However, few important disagreements occurred. Reviews were only used for guideline development in about a fifth of cases.

Consensus↗