OBJECTIVE: The International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) brought together senior and junior members actively engaged in scholarly and educational activities for a consensus conference centered on developing a strategy for sustainable training of the next generation of mechanistic researchers in female pelvic medicine.
METHODS: Four a priori identified major foci were explored in a half-day virtual consensus conference. Participants included representatives from various countries and disciplines with diverse backgrounds-clinicians, physician-scientists, and basic scientists in the fields of urogynecology, biomechanical engineering, and molecular biology. Following a keynote address, each focus area was first tackled by a dedicated breakout group, led by the Chair(s) of the most relevant IUGA committees. The break-out sessions were followed by an iterative discussion among all attendees to identify mitigating strategies to address the shortage of mechanistic researchers in the field of female pelvic medicine.
RESULTS: The major focus areas included: research priorities for IUGA basic science scholar program; viable strategies for sustainable basic science mentorship; core competencies in basic science training; and the challenges of conducting complex mechanistic experiments in low-resource countries. Key gaps in knowledge and core competencies that should be incorporated into fellowship/graduate training were identified, and existing training modalities were discussed. Recommendations were made for pragmatic approaches to increasing the exposure of trainees to learning tools to enable sustainable training of the next generation of basic science researchers in female pelvic medicine worldwide.
CONCLUSIONS: The attendees presented multiple perspectives to gain consensus regarding critical areas of need for training future generations of mechanistic researchers. Recommendations for a sustainable Basic Science Scholar Program were developed using IUGA as a platform. The overarching goal of such a program is to ensure a successful bench-to-bedside-and-back circuit in Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, ultimately improving lives of millions of women worldwide through scientifically rational effective preventative and therapeutic interventions.

Until now, there has not been organized consensus for standardization in bariatric surgery In Russia. We present the results of the first Bariatric Surgery Consensus Conference conducted in Barnaul (March, 2023). A list of questions was proposed within 6 blocks: 1) general issues of bariatric surgery, 2) sleeve gastrectomy, 3) one-anastomosis gastric bypass («mini-gastric bypass»), 4) Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass, 5) Single Anastomosis Duodenal Switch and other options for biliopancreatic bypass, 6) rare procedures. Consensus (>70% agreement) was reached for 51 out of 96 statements. Stratification by the level of expertise was carried out, and responses of the expert group were compared with responses of all participants.
До настоящего времени в России не проводилось согласования относительно проблем стандартизации в бариатрической хирургии. В данной публикации представлены результаты первой Консенсус-конференции по бариатрической хирургии. Был предложен перечень вопросов в рамках 6 блоков: 1) общие вопросы бариатрической хирургии; 2) продольная резекция желудка; 3) одноанастомозное желудочное («минижелудочное») шунтирование; 4) шунтирование по Ру; 5) SADI и другие варианты билиопанкреатического шунтирования; 6) редко выполняемые бариатрические операции. Консенсус считался достигнутым при наличии 70% голосов. Консенсус был достигнут по 51 из 96 вопросам. Проведена стратификация по уровню экспертности и осуществлено сравнение ответов группы экспертов с ответами всех участников голосования.

OBJECTIVE: The Breast Cancer Surgery Operative Standards Consensus Conference aimed to establish industry technical standards and improve breast cancer surgery practices by addressing controversial and operative breast cancer surgery-related issues in clinical practice.The conference was led by the Breast Oncoplastic and Reconstruction Branch of Guangdong Medical Industry Association (GMIA) and involved 85 breast surgeons with expertise in breast cancer conserving, oncoplastic, and reconstructive surgery.Consensus was reached through 3 meetings.The first meeting brought up the topics of interest, and evidence summaries were presented for debate during the second meeting; the third meeting was held to reach consensus recommendation for selected topics.Pre-defined consensus criteria required that the consensus was reached only when more than 70% of the panelists agreed on the topic.Out of the 57 questions set for voting, 11 operative standards were recommended as Preferred, and one was recommended as Considered.Preferred operative standards included surgical details in breast conserving surgery, mastectomy, reconstructive surgery, surgical treatment of phyllodes tumor.Selected topics that did not reach consensus among the panelists were also discussed.These Preferred operative standards could help guide clinical surgical practice in routine patient care.

UNASSIGNED: To date, there is a lack of published information on the utilization of the Deliberative dialogue methodology and the right to a dignified death in minors under 18 years of age in Colombia and Latin America.
UNASSIGNED: To examine the issue of children and adolescents\' entitlement to a dignified death, including the criteria for exclusion, and to formulate a comprehensive plan for pediatric palliative care. A public policy document will be created with the aim of supporting the implementation of Resolution 825/2018.
UNASSIGNED: Participatory Action Research utilizing a Deliberative dialogue methods that has been adapted based on feminist epistemological principles.
UNASSIGNED: The outcome of the exercise was the production of a document containing Public Policy recommendations regarding euthanasia in minors and its submission to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of Colombia a few days prior to the release of the Resolution regulating the right to a dignified death for this population. Additionally, the conclusions of this event enabled the creation of a guide for the implementation of (Cabildos Ciudadanos) Citizen Council, in which girls, boys, and adolescents are included, trans-disciplinarity is encouraged, and feminist epistemological foundations are explored.
UNASSIGNED: The deliberative dialogue method may serve as a cost-efficient alternative to replace or complement participatory approaches utilized in the development of public health guidelines and policies.
UNASSIGNED: En Colombia y Latinoamérica no se cuenta con registros publicados de temas abordados desde los metodos del diálogo deliberativo frente a temas de salud sobre la población pediátrica.
UNASSIGNED: El diálogo deliberativo fue utilizado para deliberar sobre el derecho a la muerte digna en niñas, niños y adolescentes, sus criterios de exclusión, y el marco de acción de los cuidados paliativos pediátricos.
UNASSIGNED: Investigación acción participativa recurriendo a la metodología Deliberative Poll.
UNASSIGNED: Redacción de un documento de recomendaciones de Política Pública en torno a la eutanasia en población pediátrica y entrega del mismo al Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social de Colombia días previos a la expedición de la Resolución que reglamentó el derecho a morir con dignidad para esta población; así mismo, las conclusiones de este ejercicio posibilitaron la estructuración de una guía metodológica para la realización de Cabildos Ciudadanos en donde se integra a niñas, niños y adolescentes.
UNASSIGNED: el diálogo deliberativo puede constituirse en una alternativa costo-eficiente para reemplazar o complementar metodologías de participación empleadas en la construcción de lineamientos y políticas públicas en salud.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessments (HTAs) of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) face several challenges in assessing the value of robotic surgical platforms. As a result of using different assessment methods, previous HTAs have reached different conclusions when evaluating RAS. While the number of available systems and surgical procedures is rapidly growing, existing frameworks for assessing MedTech provide a starting point, but specific considerations are needed for HTAs of RAS to ensure consistent results. This work aimed to discuss different approaches and produce guidance on evaluating RAS.
METHODS: A consensus conference research methodology was adopted. A panel of 14 experts was assembled with international experience and representing relevant stakeholders: clinicians, health economists, HTA practitioners, policy makers, and industry. A review of previous HTAs was performed and seven key themes were extracted from the literature for consideration. Over five meetings, the panel discussed the key themes and formulated consensus statements.
RESULTS: A total of ninety-eight previous HTAs were identified from twenty-five total countries. The seven key themes were evidence inclusion and exclusion, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, the learning curve, allocation of costs, appropriate time horizons, economic analysis methods, and robotic ecosystem/wider benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgical platforms are tools, not therapies. Their value varies according to context and should be considered across therapeutic areas and stakeholders. The principles set out in this paper should help HTA bodies at all levels to evaluate RAS. This work may serve as a case study for rapidly developing areas in MedTech that require particular consideration for HTAs.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM).
METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals.
RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups).
CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set.
METHODS: Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology.
RESULTS: From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied \"a priori\" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set.
Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology.
From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied \"a priori\" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes.
This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM).
This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals.
The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups).
The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Consensus on a valid and comprehensive set of outcomes to capture the full benefits and harms of implant dentistry interventions is key for progress towards better clinical guidelines and policy. In this field, outcome research remains fragmented and uses too many different outcomes. Accordingly, such efforts are still unable to cover the full breadth necessary to properly evaluate benefits, harms, and costs. Best practice examples from medicine have inspired the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurements (ID-COSM) initiative that identified four core outcome domain areas (pathophysiology, implant/prosthesis lifespan, life impact, and access to care) and five essential outcomes mandatory for all trials, plus six others that are mandatory in specific circumstances. The innovative multistep approach has combined input from scientific evidence, patients from multiple countries, methodologists, and industry representatives. It is an important step. The ID-COSM consensus aspires to contribute to better adoption of relevant and valid outcomes in trials and enable combining their results in high-quality meta-analyses to support better informed care and policy.