The Utstein Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Registry Template, introduced in 1991 and updated in 2004 and 2015, standardizes data collection to enable research, evaluation, and comparisons of systems of care. The impetus for the current update stemmed from significant advances in the field and insights from registry development and regional comparisons. This 2024 update involved representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and used a modified Delphi process. Every 2015 Utstein data element was reviewed for relevance, priority (core or supplemental), and improvement. New variables were proposed and refined. All changes were voted on for inclusion. The 2015 domains-system, dispatch, patient, process, and outcomes-were retained. Further clarity is provided for the definitions of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest attended resuscitation and attempted resuscitation. Changes reflect advancements in dispatch, early response systems, and resuscitation care, as well as the importance of prehospital outcomes. Time intervals such as emergency medical service response time now emphasize precise reporting of the times used. New flowcharts aid the reporting of system effectiveness for patients with an attempted resuscitation and system efficacy for the Utstein comparator group. Recognizing the varying capacities of emergency systems globally, the writing group provided a minimal dataset for settings with developing emergency medical systems. Supplementary variables are considered useful for research purposes. These revisions aim to elevate data collection and reporting transparency by registries and researchers and to advance international comparisons and collaborations. The overarching objective remains the improvement of outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Digital rural construction is a key strategic direction to promote China\'s rural revitalization and alleviate global climate problems. In order to put forward feasible suggestions for the subsequent development and ensure the smooth development of digital village construction, how to reflect the development level of the digital village through scientific and reasonable comprehensive evaluation has become an urgent problem to be solved. This paper establishes a comprehensive evaluation index system through the Delphi method and principal component analysis method, then assigns weights to the evaluation indicators based on the improved CRITIC-G1 method, and then grades the development level of digital villages according to the extension matter element method. Finally, taking Jiangxi Province in China as an example, the overall development level of digital villages in Jiangxi Province is evaluated from the provincial level according to the proposed method. And put forward the corresponding countermeasures and suggestions. Results: Firstly, the development level of digital villages in Jiangxi Province is good, and there is a trend of excellent development level. Secondly, from different aspects of digital rural development, the digitalization of infrastructure, services, economy, and green production in Jiangxi Province is at a good level, and the digitalization of life has reached an excellent level. Thirdly, from the perspective of development trends, the digitization of infrastructure has a progressive trend towards an excellent level of development, while the digitization of services, economy and green production has signs of development regression. According to the analysis results, the relevant countermeasures and suggestions are put forward from four aspects: talent, capital, governance system and development planning. Other regions can evaluate the development level of the digital village according to the evaluation model proposed in this paper so as to analyze the existing problems and put forward targeted solutions to promote the construction of the digital village.

OBJECTIVE: Disproportionality analyses using reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are the most commonly used quantitative methods for detecting safety signals in pharmacovigilance. However, their methods and results are generally poorly reported in published articles and existing guidelines do not capture the specific features of disproportionality analyses. We here describe the development of a guideline (REporting of A Disproportionality analysis for drUg Safety signal detection using individual case safety reports in PharmacoVigilance [READUS-PV]) for reporting the results of disproportionality analyses in articles and abstracts.
METHODS: We established a group of 34 international experts from universities, the pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies, with expertise in pharmacovigilance, disproportionality analyses, and assessment of safety signals. We followed a three-step process to develop the checklist: (1) an open-text survey to generate a first list of items; (2) an online Delphi method to select and rephrase the most important items; (3) a final online consensus meeting.
RESULTS: Among the panel members, 33 experts responded to round 1 and 30 to round 2 of the Delphi and 25 participated to the consensus meeting. Overall, 60 recommendations for the main body of the manuscript and 13 recommendations for the abstracts were retained by participants after the Delphi method. After merging of some items together and the online consensus meeting, the READUS-PV guidelines comprise a checklist of 32 recommendations, in 14 items, for the reporting of disproportionality analyses in the main body text and four items, comprising 12 recommendations, for abstracts.
CONCLUSIONS: The READUS-PV guidelines will support authors, editors, peer-reviewers, and users of disproportionality analyses using individual case safety report databases. Adopting these guidelines will lead to more transparent, comprehensive, and accurate reporting and interpretation of disproportionality analyses, facilitating the integration with other sources of evidence.

BACKGROUND: As our growing population demonstrates a significant increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer, so does patient access to their medical records. Poor health literacy and understanding of disease severity, underscores the importance of effective and accessible patient-doctor communication. No previous studies on patient understanding of thyroid pathology reports exist; therefore, we sought to characterize health literacy in this population.
METHODS: Using a modified Delphi technique, a 12-question multiple-choice survey regarding common pathology terms with possible definitions for each term was synthesized and administered to patients in a high-volume endocrine surgery clinic. Survey results, patient demographics, history of prior thyroid procedure (biopsy or surgery), and self-reported health literacy were collected. Data analysis included t tests, chi-squared, and multivariable linear regression using R.
RESULTS: The survey was completed by 54 patients (response rate: 69.8%). On univariate analysis, White race, previous thyroid procedure, and at least a high school level education were all more likely to score higher on the survey than their counterparts (P < 0.05). On multivariable logistic regression for predicting a higher survey score, only race (est: 2.48 [95% confidence interval: 1.01-3.96]) and higher educational attainment (est: 3.98 [95% confidence interval: 2.32-5.64]) remained predictive (P < 0.05). The remaining demographic groups (age, health literacy confidence, and previous thyroid procedure) did not show a statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, terms on a thyroid pathology report are poorly understood by patients. This is exacerbated by non-White race and low educational attainment. There is a need for patient-facing pathology education.

BACKGROUND: First released in 2017, the STROCSS guidelines have become integral for promoting high-quality reporting of observational research in surgery. However, regular updates are essential to ensure they remain relevant and of value to surgeons. Building on the 2021 updates, the authors have developed the STROCSS 2024 guidelines. This timely revision aims to address residual reporting gaps, assimilate recent advances, and further strengthen observational study quality across all surgical disciplines.
METHODS: A core steering committee compiled proposed changes to update the STROCSS 2021 guidelines based on identified gaps in prior iterations. An expert panel of surgical research leaders then evaluated the proposed changes for inclusion. A Delphi consensus exercise was used. Proposals that scored between 7-9 on a nine-point Likert agreement scale, by ≥70% of Delphi participants, were integrated into the STROCSS 2024 checklist.
RESULTS: In total, 46 of 56 invited participants (82%) completed the Delphi survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2024. All suggested amendments met the criteria for inclusion, indicating a high level of agreement among the Delphi group. All proposed items were therefore integrated into the final revised checklist.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors present the updated STROCSS 2024 guidelines, which have been developed through expert consensus to further enhance the transparency and reporting quality of observational research in surgery.

UNASSIGNED: In retrospective secondary data analysis studies, researchers often seek waiver of consent from institutional Review Boards (IRB) and minimize risk by utilizing complex software. Yet, little is known about the perspectives of IRB experts on these approaches. To facilitate effective communication about risk mitigation strategies using software, we conducted two studies with IRB experts to co-create appropriate language when describing a software to IRBs.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted structured focus groups with IRB experts to solicit ideas on questions regarding benefits, risks, and informational needs. Based on these results, we developed a template IRB application and template responses for a generic study using privacy-enhancing software. We then conducted a three-round Delphi study to refine the template IRB application and the template responses based on expert panel feedback. To facilitate participants\' deliberation, we shared the revisions and a summary of participants\' feedback during each Delphi round.
UNASSIGNED: 11 experts in two focus groups generated 13 ideas on risks, benefits, and informational needs. 17 experts participated in the Delphi study with 13 completing all rounds. Most agreed that privacy-enhancing software will minimize risk, but regardless all secondary data studies have an inherent risk of unexpected disclosures. The majority (84.6%) noted that subjects in retrospective secondary data studies experience no greater risks than the risks experienced in ordinary life in the modern digital society. Hence, all retrospective data-only studies with no contact with subjects would be minimal risk studies.
UNASSIGNED: First, we found fundamental disagreements in how some IRB experts view risks in secondary data research. Such disagreements are consequential because they can affect determination outcomes and might suggest IRBs at different institutions might come to different conclusions regarding similar study protocols. Second, the highest ranked risks and benefits of privacy-enhancing software in our study were societal rather than individual. The highest ranked benefits were facilitating more research and promoting responsible data governance practices. The highest ranked risks were risk of invalid results from systematic user error or erroneous algorithms. These societal considerations are typically more characteristic of public health ethics as opposed to the bioethical approach of research ethics, possibly reflecting the difficulty applying a bioethical approach (eg, informed consent) in secondary data studies. Finally, the development of privacy-enhancing technology for secondary data research depends on effective communication and collaboration between the privacy experts and technology developers. Privacy is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach that is best addressed through privacy-by-design principles. Privacy expert participation is important yet often neglected in this design process. This study suggests best practice strategies for engaging the privacy community through co-developing companion documents for software through participatory design to facilitate transparency and communication. In this case study, the final template IRB application and responses we released with the open-source software can be easily adapted by researchers to better communicate with their IRB when using the software. This can help increase responsible data governance practices when many software developers are not research ethics experts.

BACKGROUND: The Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were developed in 2016 in order to improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. Since its inception, it has been updated twice, in 2018 and 2020, and has been cited over 1000 times. PROCESS guidelines have enjoyed great acceptance within the surgical research community. Our aim is to update the PROCESS guidelines in order to maintain its applicability in the field of surgical research.
METHODS: A PROCESS 2023 steering group was created. By working in collaboration, members of this group came up with proposals to update the PROCESS 2020 guidelines. These proposals were presented to an expert panel of researchers, who in turn scrutinised these proposals and decided whether they should become part of PROCESS 2023 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise.
RESULTS: A total of 38 people participated in the development of PROCESS 2023 guidelines. The majority of items received a score between 7 and 9 from greater than 70% of the participants, indicating consensus with the proposed changes to those items. However, two items (3c and 6a) received a score between 7 and 9 from less than 70% of the participants, indicating a lack of consensus with the proposed changes to those items. Those items will remain unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS: The updated PROCESS 2023 guidelines are presented with an aim to continue improving the reporting quality of case series in surgery.

Standard outcome sets enable the value-based evaluation of health care delivery. Whereas the attainment of expert opinion has been structured using methods such as the modified-Delphi process, standardized guidelines for extraction of candidate outcomes from literature are lacking. As such, we aimed to describe an approach to obtain a comprehensive list of candidate outcomes for potential inclusion in standard outcome sets.
This study describes an iterative saturation approach, using randomly selected batches from a systematic literature search to develop a long list of candidate outcomes to evaluate healthcare. This approach can be preceded with an optional benchmark review of relevant registries and Clinical Practice Guidelines and data visualization techniques (e.g. as a WordCloud) to potentially decrease the number of iterations. The development of the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures Heart valve disease set is used to illustrate the approach. Batch cutoff choices of the iterative saturation approach were validated using data of 1000 simulated cases.
Simulation showed that on average 98% (range 92-100%) saturation is reached using a 100-article batch initially, with 25 articles in the subsequent batches. On average 4.7 repeating rounds (range 1-9) of 25 new articles were necessary to achieve saturation if no outcomes are first identified from a benchmark review or a data visualization.
In this paper a standardized approach is proposed to identify relevant candidate outcomes for a standard outcome set. This approach creates a balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility in conducting literature reviews for the identification of candidate outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons.
METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by e-mail. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items.
RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 44 (81.5%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion.
CONCLUSIONS: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centred care.

Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research. This study aims to prioritise candidate reporting items to inform a reporting guideline for PC research.
Delphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group.
International online survey.
Interdisciplinary PC researchers and research users.
We drew potential reporting items from literature review and a series of international, interdisciplinary surveys. Using an anonymous, online survey, we asked participants to vote on and whether each candidate item should be included, required or recommended in a PC research reporting guideline. Items advanced to the next Delphi round if they received>50% votes to include. Analysis used descriptive statistics plus synthesis of free-text responses.
98/116 respondents completed round 1 (84% response rate) and 89/98 completed round 2 (91%). Respondents included a variety of healthcare professions, research roles, levels of experience and all five world regions. Round 1 presented 29 potential items, and 25 moved into round 2 after rewording and combining items and adding 2 new items. A majority of round 2 respondents voted to include 23 items (90%-100% for 11 items, 80%-89% for 3 items, 70%-79% for 3 items, 60%-69% for 3 items and 50%-59% for 3 items).
Our Delphi study identified items to guide the reporting of PC research that has broad endorsement from the community of producers and users of PC research. We will now use these results to inform the final development of the CRISP guidance for reporting PC research.