Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Consensus Statements as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Consensus statements.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗
PubMed1995

Consensus methods for medical and health services research.

Health providers face the problem of trying to make decisions in situations where there is insufficient information and also where there is an overload of (often contradictory) information. Statistical methods such as meta-analysis have been developed to summarise and to resolve inconsistencies in study findings--where information is available in an appropriate form. Consensus methods provide another means of synthesising information, but are liable to use a wider range of information than is common in statistical methods, and where published information is inadequate or non-existent these methods provide a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made. Two consensus methods commonly adopted in medical, nursing, and health services research--the Delphi process and the nominal group technique (also known as the expert panel)--are described, together with the most appropriate situations for using them; an outline of the process involved in undertaking a study using each method is supplemented by illustrations of the authors' work. Key methodological issues in using the methods are discussed, along with the distinct contribution of consensus methods as aids to decision making, both in clinical practice and in health service development.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗
PubMed1999

Gastric precancerous lesions: heading for an international consensus.

As pathological criteria lie at the foundation for the classification of many diseases, a crucial requisite for such classifications to be valid is that their morphological basis be standardised. Inadequately standardised diagnostic criteria result in unacceptable interobserver variation, a factor that may influence both individual patient care and the evaluation of clinical protocols. One of the most important goals in gastric diseases today is to establish whether cure of Helicobacter pylori is an effective preventive measure against gastric cancer. To tackle this issue it is necessary to measure reliably intermediate outcomes, specifically gastric atrophy and dysplasia. However, there is little agreement on what gastric atrophy and atrophic gastritis are, and treatment and follow up results obtained at one clinical centre are often radically different from those obtained at another. Similarly, studies that examine the fate of dysplastic lesions in the stomach show a great divergence of outcomes between Europe and North America and Japan, where the concept of dysplasia has different connotations. To reach a consensus on the definitions and diagnostic criteria for atrophy and atrophic gastritis, a group of gastrointestinal pathologists and gastroenterologists met in Houston, Texas, USA, in February 1998. Substantive progress was made, but several problems remained, and a study aimed at resolving the issues that seem to stand in the way of an international agreement is currently underway. To fulfil the need for a broad discussion on the diagnostic differences of gastric dysplasia and cancer between East and West, an international group of pathologists gathered in Padova, Italy, in the spring of 1998. Their main objectives were: (1) to agree on the definitions of the spectrum of gastric preneoplastic lesions; (2) to establish an international glossary for gastric precancerous lesions; and (3) to test the consensus and eventually generate guidelines useful to clinicians for the development of management strategies. A consensus was achieved on the definition of gastric dysplasia as preinvasive neoplasia. Other validation studies are underway. The experiences achieved in the search for an international consensus on the phenotypes of atrophic gastritis and gastric dysplasia may represent a model in dealing with the new scenario of a modern evidence-based pathology.

Atrophy↗
PubMed2000

The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Use of the conventional Western and Japanese classification systems of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia results in large differences among pathologists in the diagnosis of oesophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplastic lesions. AIM: To develop common worldwide terminology for gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. METHODS: Thirty one pathologists from 12 countries reviewed 35 gastric, 20 colorectal, and 21 oesophageal biopsy and resection specimens. The extent of diagnostic agreement between those with Western and Japanese viewpoints was assessed by kappa statistics. The pathologists met in Vienna to discuss the results and to develop a new consensus terminology. RESULTS: The large differences between the conventional Western and Japanese diagnoses were confirmed (percentage of specimens for which there was agreement and kappa values: 37% and 0.16 for gastric; 45% and 0.27 for colorectal; and 14% and 0.01 for oesophageal lesions). There was much better agreement among pathologists (71% and 0.55 for gastric; 65% and 0.47 for colorectal; and 62% and 0.31 for oesophageal lesions) when the original assessments of the specimens were regrouped into the categories of the proposed Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: (1) negative for neoplasia/dysplasia, (2) indefinite for neoplasia/dysplasia, (3) non-invasive low grade neoplasia (low grade adenoma/dysplasia), (4) non-invasive high grade neoplasia (high grade adenoma/dysplasia, non-invasive carcinoma and suspicion of invasive carcinoma), and (5) invasive neoplasia (intramucosal carcinoma, submucosal carcinoma or beyond). CONCLUSION: The differences between Western and Japanese pathologists in the diagnostic classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplastic lesions can be resolved largely by adopting the proposed terminology, which is based on cytological and architectural severity and invasion status.

Adenoma↗
PubMed1998

Surveillance case definitions for work related upper limb pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: To establish consensus case definitions for several common work related upper limb pain syndromes for use in surveillance or studies of the aetiology of these conditions. METHODS: A group of healthcare professionals from the disciplines interested in the prevention and management of upper limb disorders were recruited for a Delphi exercise. A questionnaire was used to establish case definitions from the participants, followed by a consensus conference involving the core group of 29 people. The draft conclusions were recirculated for review. RESULTS: Consensus case definitions were agreed for carpal tunnel syndrome, tenosynovitis of the wrist, de Quervain's disease of the wrist, epicondylitis, shoulder capsulitis (frozen shoulder), and shoulder tendonitis. The consensus group also identified a condition defined as "non-specific diffuse forearm pain" although this is essentially a diagnosis made by exclusion. The group did not have enough experience of the thoracic outlet syndrome to make recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There was enough consensus between several health professionals from different disciplines to establish case definitions suitable for use in the studies of several work related upper limb pain syndromes. The use of these criteria should allow comparability between studies and centres and facilitate research in this field. The criteria may also be useful in surveillance programmes and as aids to case management.

Arm↗
PubMed2001

Expert consensus on the desirable characteristics of review criteria for improvement of health care quality.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the desirable characteristics of review criteria for quality improvement and to determine how they should be selected. BACKGROUND: Review criteria are the elements against which quality of care is assessed in quality improvement. Use of inappropriate criteria may impair the effectiveness of quality improvement activities and resources may be wasted in activities that fail to facilitate improved care. METHODS: A two round modified Delphi process was used to generate consensus amongst an international panel of 38 experts. A list of 40 characteristics of review criteria, identified from literature searches, was distributed to the experts who were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of each characteristic. Comments and suggestions for characteristics not included in the list were also invited. RESULTS: The Delphi process refined a comprehensive literature based list of 40 desirable characteristics of review criteria into a more precise list of 26 items. The expert consensus view is that review criteria should be developed through a well documented process involving consideration of valid research evidence, possibly combined with expert opinion, prioritisation according to health outcomes and strength of evidence, and pilot testing. Review criteria should also be accompanied by full clear information on how they might be used and how data might be collected and interpreted. CONCLUSION: The desirable characteristics for review criteria have been identified and will be of use in the development, evaluation, and selection of review criteria, thus improving the cost effectiveness of quality improvement activities in healthcare settings.

Consensus Statements as Topic↗