mycotic aneurysm

霉菌性动脉瘤
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:关于术语没有共识,定义,分类,诊断标准,和算法,或报告感染性天然主动脉瘤(INAA)疾病的标准,以前被称为霉菌性动脉瘤。这项研究的目的是通过进行共识研究来建立这一点。
    方法:使用德尔菲法。通过邮件邀请了37名国际专家参加。进行了四次两周的Delphi回合,使用在线问卷,最初有22项声明和9项报告项目。小组成员以5分的李克特量表对发言进行了评分。对声明的评论进行了分析,修改了声明,和结果在迭代轮次中呈现。共识被定义为≥75%的小组在李克特量表上选择“强烈同意”或“同意”,最终评估的共识定义为Cronbach的α系数>.80。
    结果:所有38名小组成员完成了所有四个回合,导致100%的参与和同意这项研究是必要的,INAA一词被认为是最佳的。根据小组的结果和意见,又增加了三项声明,最后产生了25份声明和9个报告项目。所有25份声明达成了≥87%的协议,所有九个报告项目达成了100%的协议。Cronbach的alpha在每个连续回合中都增加(第1回合=.84,第2回合=.87,第3回合=.90和第4回合=.92)。因此,所有声明和报告项目都达成了共识。
    结论:本德尔菲研究建立了关于INAA术语的第一个共识文件,定义,分类,诊断标准,和算法,以及报告标准。这项研究的结果为这种疾病的科学研究创造了必要的条件。提出的共识将需要根据新获得的知识进行未来的修正。
    OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus regarding the terminology, definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, and algorithm, or reporting standards for the disease of infective native aortic aneurysm (INAA), previously known as mycotic aneurysm. The aim of this study was to establish this by performing a consensus study.
    METHODS: The Delphi methodology was used. Thirty-seven international experts were invited via mail to participate. Four two week Delphi rounds were performed, using an online questionnaire, initially with 22 statements and nine reporting items. The panellists rated the statements on a five point Likert scale. Comments on statements were analysed, statements revised, and results presented in iterative rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% of the panel selecting \"strongly agree\" or \"agree\" on the Likert scale, and consensus on the final assessment was defined as Cronbach\'s alpha coefficient > .80.
    RESULTS: All 38 panellists completed all four rounds, resulting in 100% participation and agreement that this study was necessary, and the term INAA was agreed to be optimal. Three more statements were added based on the results and comments of the panel, resulting in a final 25 statements and nine reporting items. All 25 statements reached an agreement of ≥ 87%, and all nine reporting items reached an agreement of 100%. The Cronbach\'s alpha increased for each consecutive round (round 1 = .84, round 2 = .87, round 3 = .90, and round 4 = .92). Thus, consensus was reached for all statements and reporting items.
    CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study established the first consensus document on INAA regarding terminology, definition, classification, diagnostic criteria, and algorithm, as well as reporting standards. The results of this study create essential conditions for scientific research on this disease. The presented consensus will need future amendments in accordance with newly acquired knowledge.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号