BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulceration (VLU) is a chronic, recurring condition with associated pain, malodour, impaired mobility and susceptibility to infection which in turn significantly impacts an individual\'s health-related quality of life. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to determine the efficacy of interventions to improve outcomes. To be useful, these outcomes should be consistently and fully reported across RCTs. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed-upon standardised set of outcomes which should be, at a minimum, reported in all RCTs for a given indication including that of VLU.
OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on which outcome domains and outcomes should be considered as core and therefore included in all RCTs of interventions in VLU treatment.
METHODS: Two sequential, two round e-Delphi surveys were completed. The first gained consensus on core outcome domains and the second on core outcomes within those domains. Participants included: people with direct experience of having VLUs and their carers, healthcare professionals whose practice included VLU care and researchers within wound care (clinical, academic, industry).
RESULTS: Five outcome domains; healing, pain, quality of life, resource use and adverse events, and 11 outcomes were rated as core by participants. The patient and not the limb or ulcer was the preferred unit of analysis for reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend investigators report on all five outcome domains, regardless of the type of intervention being evaluated. Future research is needed to identify measurement methods for the 11 identified outcomes. We also recommend investigators follow the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

UNASSIGNED: Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis is applied in daily practice, although guidelines are lacking. Striving for clear criteria is important, as it leads to a consistent application of dose reduction.
UNASSIGNED: To achieve consensus on criteria for biologic dose reduction in psoriasis patients with stable and low disease activity.
UNASSIGNED: An online Delphi procedure (eDelphi) was conducted. Dutch dermatologists were invited to participate in a maximum of 3 voting rounds. Proposed statements were selected based on literature review and included criteria for the application of dose reduction and dosing schedules. Biologic dose reduction was defined as \'application of injection interval prolongation\'. Proposed statements were rated using a 9-point Likert scale; consensus was reached when ≥70% of all voters rated \'agree\' (7-9) and <15% rated \'disagree\' (1-3).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 27 dermatologists participated and reached a consensus on 15 recommendations over 2 voting rounds. Agreed statements included criteria for dose reduction eligibility, criteria for dose reduction (dis)continuation, and dosing schedules for adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab. Based on the eDelphi outcomes, an algorithm fit for implementation in current practice was developed.
UNASSIGNED: Recommendations of this national consensus process can guide clinicians, and consequently their patients, toward consistent application of biologic dose reduction.

UNASSIGNED: Despite their adverse effects, antipsychotics are frequently used to manage behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Regular monitoring of antipsychotic prescribing has been shown to improve the appropriateness of prescribing. However, there is currently no consensus on what the components of such a monitoring tool would be.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to use an expert consensus process to identify the key components of an antipsychotic repeat prescribing tool for use with people with dementia in a general practice setting.
UNASSIGNED: A modified eDelphi technique was employed. We invited multidisciplinary experts in antipsychotic prescribing to people with dementia to participate. These experts included general practitioners (GPs), geriatricians and old age psychiatrists. The list of statements for round 1 was developed through a review of existing monitoring tools and international best practice guidelines. In the second round of the Delphi, any statement that had not reached consensus in the first round was presented for re-rating, with personalized feedback on the group and the individual\'s response to the specific statement. The final round consisted of a face-to-face expert meeting to resolve any uncertainties from round 2.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 23 items were rated over two eDelphi rounds and one face-to-face consensus meeting to yield a total of 18 endorsed items and five rejected items. The endorsed statements informed the development of a structured, repeat prescribing tool for monitoring antipsychotics in people with dementia in primary care.
UNASSIGNED: The development of repeat prescribing tool provides GPs with practical advice that is lacking in current guidelines and will help to support GPs by providing a structured format to use when reviewing antipsychotic prescriptions for people with dementia, ultimately improving patient care. The feasibility and acceptability of the tool now need to be evaluated in clinical practice.