OBJECTIVE: Trial data shows modest reductions in leg pain, disability and surgery avoidance following epidural steroid injections (ESI) for severe sciatica. Despite their common use, there is no clear evidence about which patients are more likely to benefit from ESI. The aim of this study was to generate consensus on potential predictors of outcome following ESI for disc-related sciatica.
METHODS: A list of potential predictors of outcome was generated during a consensus meeting of seven experts. The items were subsequently presented in a two round on-line Delphi study to generate consensus among experts on which items are potential predictors of outcome. Consensus was defined as 70% agreement among participants.
RESULTS: Sixty-one items were generated during the consensus meeting. Of ninety experts invited to participate in the on-line Delphi study, 44 (48%) and 33 (73%) took part in rounds one and two respectively. Twenty-eight additional items suggested by participants in round one were included in round two. Overall, 14 items reached consensus reflecting domains of health, medication use, pain intensity, psychosocial factors, imaging findings and type of injection.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on expert consensus, items that can be routinely collected in clinical practice were identified as potential predictors of outcomes following ESI.

OBJECTIVE: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS.
METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT).
RESULTS: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered.
CONCLUSIONS: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.

UNASSIGNED: Enhancing treatment adherence, especially for chronic diseases, can be achieved through therapeutic alliance, potentially elevating the quality of care. An instrument to evaluate the therapeutic alliance could be beneficial in routine clinical settings, educational environments, and extensive research efforts at national and European levels. In this study, we translated therapist and patient versions of the Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised (WAI-SR) into Italian.
UNASSIGNED: An email-based Delphi method was employed for the English-to-Italian translation, incorporating a forward-backward process. The initial translation team comprised two Italian family physicians proficient in English, a linguist, and a psychiatrist. The forward translation was then reviewed by 18 Italian family physicians through a Delphi process and was subjected to a backward translation by two Italian English teachers. A cultural correspondence was subsequently identified to adjust translations within a national and international framework.
UNASSIGNED: All 18 experts fully engaged in the Delphi process, and consensus was achieved by the second Delphi round. A cultural check checked for discrepancies regarding linguistic consistency with other translations and found no difference.
UNASSIGNED: This Italian translation of the WAI-SR is expected to support Italian family physicians aiming to enhance their clinical practice and therapeutic outcomes. It could also be a valuable tool for Italian medical students to foster therapeutic relationships and improve their communication skills.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this Delphi study was to understand and assess the level of consensus among respiratory experts on the clinical application of GOLD 2023 recommendations in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
METHODS: The study comprised two online surveys and a participant meeting with 34 respiratory experts from 16 countries. Responses of 73 questions were recorded using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagreement) to 9 (agreement). The consensus threshold was 75%.
RESULTS: Survey 1 and survey 2 had 34 and 32 participants, respectively; and 25 attended the participant meeting. Consensus was reached on survey 1: 28/42; survey 2: 18/30 close-ended questions. A consensus was reached on the clinical relevance of most updates in definitions and diagnosis of COPD. Mixed results for the treatment recommendations by GOLD were noted: 74% agreed with the recommendation to initiate treatment with dual bronchodilators for group E patients; 63% agreed for including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist(LABA)/ Long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA) as a treatment option for GOLD B patients. Also, consensus lacked on removing ICS + LABA as an initial therapeutic option, in countries with challenges in access to other treatment option;. 88% agreed that they use GOLD recommendations in their daily clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding key concepts of GOLD 2023 report, with most participants favoring recent updates in definitions, diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. More evidence on the etiotype based management and treatment options for group B and E are required which could further strengthen clinical application of the GOLD report.
The goal of this Delphi study was to understand and assess the level of alignment among the respiratory experts on the application of key changes and recommendations proposed by the GOLD 2023 report in their routine clinical practice for the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There were two online surveys in this study, and experts from 16 countries (primarily focused on developing countries) were invited to participate. Using the Delphi method, expert representatives shared their insights with the aim of optimizing patient care. The alignment was assessed in six well-defined themes: 1) Overall view on GOLD/other recommendations; 2) Assessing patients with COPD; 3) Initial pharmacological treatment in patients with COPD; 4) Vaccination for patients with COPD; 5) Follow-up pharmacological treatment in patients with COPD; and 6) Survival evidence in patients with COPD. Participants expressed a high level of agreement regarding key concepts of the GOLD 2023 report, with most of them agreeing with recent updates in definitions, diagnosis, management, and prevention of COPD. The results also highlighted the need to publish GOLD reports in multiple languages and in a shorter, pocket-sized format to increase awareness and adaptation among healthcare providers.

Role of triple therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is supported by growing evidence, but consensus is lacking on various aspects. We conducted a Delphi survey in respiratory experts on the effects of triple therapy on exacerbation reduction, early optimization, pneumonia risk, and mortality benefits in COPD management.
The study comprised 2-round online surveys and a participant meeting with 21 respiratory experts from 10 countries. The 31-statement questionnaire was prepared using Decipher software after literature review. Responses were recorded using Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagreement) to 9 (agreement) with a consensus threshold of 75%.
All experts participated in both surveys and 14/21 attended participant meeting. Consensus was reached on 13/31 questions in first survey and 4/14 in second survey on: mortality benefits of triple therapy; comparable pneumonia risk between single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) and multiple inhaler triple therapy (81%); preference of SITT for patients with high eosinophil count (95%); exacerbation risk reduction and healthcare cost benefits with early initiation of SITT post exacerbation-related hospitalization (<30 days) (86%). No consensus was reached on first line SITT use after first exacerbation resulting in COPD diagnosis (62%).
This study demonstrated that there is consensus among experts regarding many of the key concepts about appropriate clinical use and benefits of triple therapy in COPD. More evidence is required for evaluating the benefits of early optimisation of triple therapy.

We aimed to develop a checklist to aid guideline developers in determining which scientific or societal cause (\"triggers\") are relevant when considering to initiate a rapid recommendation procedure.
We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.
Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final \"quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation\" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.
The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.

Our aim was to assess the opinion of a panel of experts and obtain a consensus on the management of endometrial cancer in France and French Switzerland. A Delphi survey was carried out among a panel of French and French-speaking Swiss experts. The first questionnaire included 65 questions divided into eight categories: characterization of experts, histo-molecular characteristics and radiological data of endometrial cancer, and management of low-risk, intermediate-risk, intermediate-high-risk, high-risk, and metastatic cancers. The experts were asked to reply on a 9-point scale, both on the validity and the clarity of each question. After the answers were analyzed, a second questionnaire was sent to the same experts. The study took place between December 2021 and March 2022. Further, 58 (57.4%) of the 101 experts responded in the first round, and 39 recommendations were obtained (60%). Six questions were voted redundant and 20 discordant. These questions were reformulated, and, at the end of the second round, 17 recommendations were validated (85%). In total, the study presents an analysis of 56 questions and related responses. Expert advice helps to clarify non-consensual issues, standardize the management of endometrial cancer, and optimize clinical practices.

Etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders of middle-old age relies on biomarkers, although evidence for their rational use is incomplete. A European task force is defining a diagnostic workflow where expert experience fills evidence gaps for biomarker validity and prioritization. We report methodology and preliminary results.
Using a Delphi consensus method supported by a systematic literature review, 22 delegates from 11 relevant scientific societies defined workflow assumptions.
We extracted diagnostic accuracy figures from literature on the use of biomarkers in the diagnosis of main forms of neurocognitive disorders. Supported by this evidence, panelists defined clinical setting (specialist outpatient service), application stage (MCI-mild dementia), and detailed pre-assessment screening (clinical-neuropsychological evaluations, brain imaging, and blood tests).
The Delphi consensus on these assumptions set the stage for the development of the first pan-European workflow for biomarkers\' use in the etiological diagnosis of middle-old age neurocognitive disorders at MCI-mild dementia stages.
Rational use of biomarkers in neurocognitive disorders lacks consensus in Europe. A consensus of experts will define a workflow for the rational use of biomarkers. The diagnostic workflow will be patient-centered and based on clinical presentation. The workflow will be updated as new evidence accrues.

Conservative management of lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is the first treatment option. To date, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines have not considered the most appropriate timing of management. This study aimed to establish consensus on effective conservative treatment modalities across different stages (i.e., acute, sub-acute, or chronic) of LR.
Through an iterative multistage Delphi process, experts rated agreement with proposed treatment modalities across stages of LR and could suggest additional treatment modalities. The agreement was measured using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to measure agreement (median, interquartile ranges, and percentage of agreement). Consensus criteria were defined a priori for each round.
Fourteen panelists produced a consensus list of effective treatment modalities across stages of LR. Acute stage management should focus on providing patients with information about the condition including pain education, individualized physical activity, and directional preference exercises, supported with NSAIDs. In the sub-acute stage, strength training and neurodynamic mobilization could be added and transforaminal/epidural injections considered. In the chronic stage, spinal manipulative therapy, specific exercise, and function-specific physical training should be combined with individualized vocational, ergonomic and postural advice.
Experts agree effectiveness of interventions differs through the evolution of LR.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONTo date clinical guideline for conservative management of lumbar radiculopathy do not consider the evolution of the condition.Acute stage management of lumbar radiculopathy should focus on providing information about the condition and support individualized physical activity with pain medication.Sub-acute management should add neurodynamic mobilization to strength training, while transforaminal and/or epidural injections could be considered.Chronic stage management should consider spinal manipulative therapy and focus on restoring personalized functional capacity.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been widely used in both clinical and research practice. However, TMS might induce unintended sensations and undesired effects as well as serious adverse effects. To date, no shared forms are available to report such unintended effects. This study aimed at developing a questionnaire enabling reporting of TMS unintended effects. A Delphi procedure was applied which allowed consensus among TMS experts. A steering committee nominated a number of experts to be involved in the Delphi procedure. Three rounds were conducted before reaching a consensus. Afterwards, the questionnaire was publicized on the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology website to collect further suggestions by the wider scientific community. A last Delphi round was then conducted to obtain consensus on the suggestions collected during the publicization and integrate them in the questionnaire. The procedure resulted in a questionnaire, that is the TMSens_Q, applicable in clinical and research settings. Routine use of the structured TMS questionnaire and standard reporting of unintended TMS effects will help to monitor the safety of TMS, particularly when applying new protocols. It will also improve the quality of data collection as well as the interpretation of experimental findings.