OBJECTIVE: To select and define the clinical questions and outcomes of Guideline for the Emergency Treatment of Anaphylaxis.
METHODS: A draft including clinical questions, which could be divided into foreground questions and background questions, and outcomes was drawn and revised by the secretary group for the guideline referring to the present guidelines with the guidance of a panel consisting of 7 experienced clinical medicine, pharmacy and nursing experts. Foreground questions and outcomes of the draft were voted into a final version after three rounds of counsels of 22 experienced medicine, pharmacy and nursing clinical experts using Delphi method including 3 rounds of inquiry. And the background questions were directly included in the guideline after the 22 experts\' thorough revising. The research was carried out under the supervision of method ologists. Active coefficient, coefficient of variation and the frequencies of each score were calculated for quality control.
RESULTS: The draft of 34 foreground questions, 6 background questions and 6 outcomes was finally drawn up after thorough selecting and consulting. The 6 background questions revised by the clinical experts were all included. After three rounds of Delphi method, 28 pivotal clinical questions covering the diagnosis, preparation for the treatment, treatment and administration after the treatment, and 6 outcomes were defined and included for the guideline. The rest of the foreground questions, 4 of which were recognized as essential and 2 as important, were excluded from the guideline and left for further revising or updating. As for the outcomes, 4 of them were recognized as critical and the rest as important. The experts contributing to the research were active as the active coefficient reached 100%, and the degree of consensus was fine as the frequencies of the feedback scoring equal to or greater than 4 for all the 28 foreground questions included were greater than 75% and the result was settled in the first round. And 2 outcomes, fatality rate and severity, reached a higher degree of consensus with coefficient of variation less than 15%.
CONCLUSIONS: After thorough and rigorous selecting, the clinical questions and outcomes to be included in the Guideline for the Emergency Treatment of Anaphylaxis were finally selected and defined via Delphi method, guiding the future development of the guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To formulate and evaluate clinical questions about intra-articular injection for knee osteoarthritis in developing clinical practice guidelines and to introduce a new methodology for framing relevant questions.
METHODS: We framed the clinical questions and evaluated the importance of these questions according to the following four steps: (a) first round questionnaire survey intended to get the clinical questions from doctors; (b) evaluating importance of questions via second round questionnaire survey intended to summarize and rank the clinical questions; (c) consensus conference was conducted by clinical and methodological experts; and (d) confirm the important clinical questions according to PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) principles.
RESULTS: After the first round questionnaire survey, the number of clinical questions was 26. Thirteen of these 26 questions were regarded as important questions by the second questionnaire survey. Ultimately, the 13 important clinical questions were determined in a consensus conference. All included questions were deconstructed by clinical experts and methodologists based on the PICO principles.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study describes an approach about the selection of clinical questions and importance evaluation. Relevant important clinical questions about intra-articular injection for knee osteoarthritis are determined according to the methodology. It could help other guideline developers to utilize this method to frame clinical questions.