BACKGROUND: Epistaxis is a recurring cause for referral to emergency departments. Its management can be complex; hence, it is critical to provide appropriate support to Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) residents to develop clinical reasoning skills to manage such cases. Learning-by-Concordance (LbC) is a recently developed educational tool that encourages learners to think through simulated clinical scenarios. A panel of ENTs provides insightful feedback to residents, reflecting a diversity of opinions about practice. Our study aimed to assess LbC\'s feasibility and perceived value for training OHNS residents in epistaxis management.
METHODS: In this qualitative study, three OHNS surgeons, including two faculty members and one resident, wrote the LbC scenarios. The LbC tool was made available to participants through an online platform. A panel of four OHNS faculty provided feedback on answers to LbC questions. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery residents participated and provided their opinion on the value of this educational tool through an online questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 10 one-hour sessions were required to create and upload the training tool. To provide insightful feedback embedded in the learning tool, the four panelists needed 60 min each. Of the 37 participating residents, 25 (68%) completed the training. Overall satisfaction was high: 88% appreciated the training method, and 92% wanted to use this type of training again. Most residents felt the training enabled them to improve their clinical reasoning when encountering a patient with epistaxis (92%) and their knowledge about epistaxis (96%).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that OHNS residents could benefit from clinical reasoning exercises with panelist feedback using the LbC approach for clinical presentations that require complex approaches to manage conditions such as epistaxis.

The proposed expert opinion aimed to address the current knowledge on conceptual, clinical, and therapeutic aspects of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and to provide a guidance document to assist clinicians for the best practice in DPN care. The participating experts consider the suspicion of the disease by clinicians as a key factor in early recognition and diagnosis, emphasizing an improved awareness of the disease by the first-admission or referring physicians. The proposed \"screening and diagnostic\" algorithm involves the consideration of DPN in a patient with prediabetes or diabetes who presents with neuropathic symptoms and/or signs of neuropathy in the presence of DPN risk factors, with careful consideration of laboratory testing to rule out other causes of distal symmetric peripheral neuropathy and referral for a detailed neurological work-up for a confirmative test of either small or large nerve fiber dysfunction in atypical cases. Although, the first-line interventions for DPN are currently represented by optimized glycemic control (mainly for type 1 diabetes) and multifactorial intervention (mainly for type 2 diabetes), there is a need for individualized pathogenesis-directed treatment approaches for DPN. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) seems to be an important first-line pathogenesis-directed agent, given that it is a direct and indirect antioxidant that works with a strategy targeted directly against reactive oxygen species and indirectly in favor of endogenous antioxidant capacity for improving DPN conditions. There is still a gap in existing research in the field, necessitating well-designed, robust, multicenter clinical trials with sensitive endpoints and standardized protocols to facilitate the diagnosis of DPN via a simple and effective algorithm and to track progression of disease and treatment response. Identification of biomarkers/predictors that would allow an individualized approach from a potentially disease-modifying perspective may provide opportunities for novel treatments that would be efficacious in early stages of DPN, and may modify the natural course of the disease. This expert opinion document is expected to increase awareness among physicians about conceptual, clinical, and therapeutic aspects of DPN and to assist them in timely recognition of DPN and translating this information into their clinical practice for best practice in the management of patients with DPN.

The year 2024 is the 20th anniversary of the discovery of activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Since then, tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of NSCLC based on this discovery. Some of these studies have led to seismic changes in the concept of oncology research and spurred treatment advances beyond NSCLC, leading to a current true era of precision oncology for all solid tumors. We now routinely molecularly profile all tumor types and even plasma samples of patients with NSCLC for multiple actionable driver mutations, independent of patient clinical characteristics nor is profiling limited to the advanced incurable stage. We are increasingly monitoring treatment responses and detecting resistance to targeted therapy by using plasma genotyping. Furthermore, we are now profiling early-stage NSCLC for appropriate adjuvant targeted treatment leading to an eventual potential \"cure\" in early-stage EGFR+ NSCLC which have societal implication on implementing lung cancer screening in never-smokers as most EGFR+ NSCLC patients are never-smokers. All these advances were unfathomable in 2004 when the five papers that described \"discoveries\" of activating EGFR mutations (del19, L858R, exon 20 insertions, and \"uncommon\" mutations) were published. To commemorate this 20th anniversary, we assembled a global panel of thoracic medical oncology experts to select the top 20 papers (publications or congress presentation) from the 20 years since this seminal discovery with December 31, 2023 as the cutoff date for inclusion of papers to be voted on. Papers ranked 21 to 30 were considered \"honorable mention\" and also annotated. Our objective is that these 30 papers with their annotations about their impact and even all the ranked papers will serve as \"syllabus\" for the education of future thoracic oncology trainees. Finally, we mentioned potential practice-changing clinical trials to be reported. One of them, LAURA was published online on June 2, 2024 was not included in the list of papers to be voted on but will surely be highly ranked if this consensus survery is performed again on the 25th anniversay of the discovery EGFR mutations (i.e. top 25 papers on the 25 years since the discovery of activating EGFR mutations).

The increasing burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in relation to alarming rise in the prevalence; challenges in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment; as well as the substantial impact of disease on longevity and quality of life, is a major concern in healthcare worldwide. Sulfonylureas (SUs) have been a cornerstone of T2D pharmacotherapy for over 60 years as oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), while the newer generation SUs, such as gliclazide modified release (MR), are known to be associated with low risk of hypoglycemia in addition to the cardiovascular neutrality. This scoping review aimed to specifically address the current position of gliclazide MR among other SUs in the contemporary treatment paradigm for T2D and to provide a practical guidance document to assist clinicians in using gliclazide MR in real-life clinical practice. The main topics addressed in this paper include the role of early and sustained glycemic control and use of SUs in T2D management, the properties of gliclazide MR in relation to its effectiveness and safety, the use of gliclazide therapy in special populations, and the place of SUs as a class and gliclazide MR specifically in the current T2D treatment algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) places greater importance on the role of clinical evidence to establish safety and performance. Article 54 of the MDR calls for expert committees to independently review the scientific, technical, and clinical evidence supporting the market authorization of certain novel devices independently from the established process of Notified Body reviews. These experts provide a review and opinion that ultimately is taken into consideration alongside the information reviewed by the Notified Body during the review process. Four expert committees (General and Plastic Surgery and Dentistry; Orthopaedics, Traumatology, Rehabilitation, Rheumatology; Circulatory System; and Neurology) have published at least one Scientific Opinion (SO) under the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) in 2021-2022.
METHODS: The four expert committees with published CECP opinions were reviewed to assess the academic backgrounds and professional expertise of each member with respect to clinical, technical, and biological domains on a 0-2 scale for each domain. A content review was conducted on the 10 CECP opinions published by these committees to assess their consistency with the goals and outcome expectations set by the MDR. The extent of content related to each of the clinical, technical, and biological domains was also assessed on a 0-2 scale.
RESULTS: All committees were composed primarily by members with strong clinical expertise, but only a few had strong technical and biological expertise. Across committees, the average scores of members related to academic background and professional expertise both ranged from 1.64 to 2.00 in the clinical domain, but only 0-0.15 and 0.15-0.69, respectively, in the biological domain, and 0.12-0.55 and 0.23-0.73, respectively, in the technical domain. A content review for the 10 SOs showed that all opinions focused exclusively or primarily on the clinical evidence. Three contained a modest amount of additional text directed at technical/engineering issues and five at biological issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Expert committees are composed predominantly of expert clinical reviewers but have many fewer members with significant technical or biological expertise. This may limit the ability of the committees to evaluate the significant technical and biological risks that are often best understood by preclinical testing. Broadening the expertise across the committees may improve the depth of their benefit/risk critiques.

We developed an expert panel approach for identifying expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of population-level policy interventions. ROMPER-the RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings-involves an online, three-round, modified-Delphi process:•Experts rate and comment on policies according to domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework.•To identify consensus on policy effectiveness and implementability, expert ratings are analyzed using the Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS) technique from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and visualized using a forest plot. To explain consensus, expert comments are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.•To provide actionable information for decisionmakers, each policy is summarized in a \"Policy Profile\" adapted from GRADEPro Evidence-to-Decision tables.We validated ROMPER in two studies that successfully recruited the targeted sample size, retained experts through all three rounds, and examined consensus on which policies are (not) effective and implementable. ROMPER protocols, materials, data, and code are openly available on the Open Science Framework with Creative Commons licensing for replication and reuse. ROMPER provides a validated, replicable, open access approach for eliciting expert views on both policy effectiveness and implementability-and for summarizing (lack of) consensus specifically for policymakers.

Accurate assessments of symptoms and diagnoses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a more accurate or best-estimate assessment. Three bodies of work spanning medicine, psychiatry, and psychology propose similar assessment methods: The Expert Panel, the Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and the Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD). However, the quality of such best-estimate assessments is typically very difficult to evaluate due to poor reporting of the assessment methods and when it is reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. Here we tackle this gap by developing reporting guidelines for such studies, using a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by rationales and empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having two researchers test it and ii) using it to examine the extent previously published articles report the standards. The last step also demonstrates the need for the guideline: 18 to 58% (Mean = 33%) of the standards were not reported across fifteen randomly selected studies. The LEADING guideline comprises 20 reporting standards related to four groups: The Longitudinal design; the Appropriate data; the Evaluation - experts, materials, and procedures; and the Validity group. We hope that the LEADING guideline will be useful in assisting researchers in planning, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.

Large variation exists in the monitoring of clinical outcome domains in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Furthermore, it is unclear which outcome domains are important from the PSPS patient\'s perspective. The study objectives were to identify patient-relevant outcome domains for PSPS and to establish a PSPS outcomes framework. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting views or preferences of PSPS patients on outcome domains. The Arksey and O\'Malley framework was followed to identify outcome domains. An expert panel rated the domains based on the importance for PSPS patients they have treated. A framework of relevant outcome domains was established using the selected outcome domains by the expert panel. No studies were found for PSPS type 1. Five studies with 77 PSPS type 2 patients were included for further analysis. Fourteen outcome domains were identified. An expert panel, including 27 clinical experts, reached consensus on the domains pain, daily activities, perspective of life, social participation, mobility, mood, self-reliance, and sleep. Eleven domains were included in the PSPS type 2 outcomes framework. This framework is illustrative of a more holistic perspective and should be used to improve the evaluation of care for PSPS type 2 patients. Further research is needed on the prioritization of relevant outcome domains.

BACKGROUND: As the most rapidly increasing neurodegenerative disease worldwide, Parkinson\'s disease is highly relevant to society. Successful treatment requires active patient participation. Patient education has been successfully implemented for many chronic diseases, such as diabetes and could also provide people with Parkinson\'s disease with skills to manage the disease better and to participate in shared decision making.
METHODS: To prepare the implementation of a concept for patient education for people with Parkinson\'s disease, a structured consensus study was conducted and a pilot project formatively evaluated. The structured consensus study included experts from all over Germany. It consisted of two online surveys and an online consensus conference. The formative evaluation was conducted as three focus groups. Transcripts were evaluated using content-structuring qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS: From the consensus procedure 59 consented statements emerged, mainly regarding the contents of a patient school and a group size of 6-8 persons. Only two statements could not be consented. The formative evaluation detected a tendency towards a positive attitude for a digital training format and a very positive evaluation of the contents.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, important recommendations for a patient school can be drawn from this study. The following subjects require further investigation: format, inclusion criteria, group composition and inclusion of caregivers.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Die Parkinson-Krankheit ist als weltweit am schnellsten zunehmende neurodegenerative Erkrankung gesellschaftlich hoch relevant. Für eine erfolgreiche Behandlung ist die aktive Beteiligung der Patient*innen erforderlich. Patientenschulen werden bei vielen chronischen Erkrankungen wie Diabetes erfolgreich eingesetzt und könnten auch Menschen mit der Parkinson-Krankheit Fähigkeiten vermitteln, besser mit der Krankheit umzugehen und an Therapieentscheidungen teilzunehmen.
METHODS: Um die Implementierung eines Konzepts für eine Patientenschule für Menschen mit der Parkinson-Krankheit vorzubereiten, wurde ein strukturiertes Konsensusverfahren durchgeführt und ein Pilotprojekt formativ evaluiert. Das strukturierte Konsensusverfahren mit deutschlandweit rekrutierten Expert*innen gliederte sich in eine 1. und 2. Onlinebefragung sowie eine abschließende Konsensuskonferenz. Die formative Evaluation erfolgte durch drei Fokusgruppen. Die Transkripte dieser Gruppeninterviews wurden computergestützt mittels inhaltlich-strukturierender qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse ausgewertet.
UNASSIGNED: In dem Konsensusverfahren konnten 59 Aussagen konsentiert werden, insbesondere zu den Inhalten einer Patientenschule und zu einer Gruppengröße von 6 bis 8 Personen. Lediglich zwei Aussagen wurden nicht konsentiert. Aus der formativen Evaluation waren eine tendenziell positive Haltung gegenüber einem digitalen Schulungsformat und eine sehr positive Bewertung der Inhalte ableitbar.
CONCLUSIONS: Insgesamt konnten wichtige Empfehlungen für eine Patientenschule formuliert werden. Zu den Themen Format, Einschlusskriterien, Gruppenzusammensetzung und Einbeziehung von Angehörigen ist dagegen eine weitere Betrachtung erforderlich.

Academics in medicine are frequently asked to serve on panels to discuss their clinical, research, education, administrative or personal expertise. While panel discussions are often the highlight of a conference or event, in the medical literature, there is very little published on how an individual can effectively prepare and present as an expert panelist. This paper offers guidelines that will enable academics to prepare, deliver, and engage in active dialogue during a panel discussion. Specific tactics include how to accept invitations to serve on a panel, conducting pre-panel conference meetings and background research, preparing concise opening statements and new insights, connecting with the audience, answering questions in a collaborative spirit, and debriefing after the panel. These guidelines will be valuable to any individual invited to serve on a panel discussion and will promote future panelists in engaging in constructive and fulfilling dialogue, with the ultimate goal of leaving the audience with a greater understanding of the topic of discourse.