The rise of consensus methods in paramedicine research: A bibliographic analysis.

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE

Australasian Emergency Care Pub Date : 2025-07-03 DOI:10.1016/j.auec.2025.06.008

Rachael Vella, Amy Hutchison, Paul Simpson, Robin Pap

{"title":"The rise of consensus methods in paramedicine research: A bibliographic analysis.","authors":"Rachael Vella, Amy Hutchison, Paul Simpson, Robin Pap","doi":"10.1016/j.auec.2025.06.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Consensus-based studies are increasingly common in paramedicine research. Whilst there are four main consensus methodologies, recent analyses in other disciplines describe great diversity in method characterised by frequent modifications.Aim: To describe the application and characteristics of consensus research methodologies in paramedicine.Methods: A bibliographic analysis was conducted of published research reporting use of a consensus methodology, drawing data from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL. Two researchers performed abstract screening, full text review, and data extraction. A descriptive analysis was conducted.Results: There were 161 paramedicine consensus studies published between 1997 and 2024. Delphi technique was most frequent (83 %), followed by NGT (12 %). The US accounted for the most studies with 44 (26 %), followed by UK with 33 (20 %), Canada 15 (9 %), Norway 12 (7 %) and Australia 12 (7 %). Modifications were reported by authors in 54 % of studies. Of 141 Delphi studies, 31 % demonstrated the use of published reporting or methodological guidance.Conclusion: The prevalence of consensus research has increased considerably, dominated by Delphi methodology. Significant methodological heterogeneity was observed, and engagement with methodological and reporting guidelines appeared uncommon. There may be a need for stronger methodological guidance within the paramedicine research space to ensure quality in consensus research.","PeriodicalId":55979,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2025.06.008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Consensus-based studies are increasingly common in paramedicine research. Whilst there are four main consensus methodologies, recent analyses in other disciplines describe great diversity in method characterised by frequent modifications.

Aim: To describe the application and characteristics of consensus research methodologies in paramedicine.

Methods: A bibliographic analysis was conducted of published research reporting use of a consensus methodology, drawing data from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL. Two researchers performed abstract screening, full text review, and data extraction. A descriptive analysis was conducted.

Results: There were 161 paramedicine consensus studies published between 1997 and 2024. Delphi technique was most frequent (83 %), followed by NGT (12 %). The US accounted for the most studies with 44 (26 %), followed by UK with 33 (20 %), Canada 15 (9 %), Norway 12 (7 %) and Australia 12 (7 %). Modifications were reported by authors in 54 % of studies. Of 141 Delphi studies, 31 % demonstrated the use of published reporting or methodological guidance.

Conclusion: The prevalence of consensus research has increased considerably, dominated by Delphi methodology. Significant methodological heterogeneity was observed, and engagement with methodological and reporting guidelines appeared uncommon. There may be a need for stronger methodological guidance within the paramedicine research space to ensure quality in consensus research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

共识方法在辅助医学研究中的兴起：书目分析。

导言：基于共识的研究在辅助医学研究中越来越普遍。虽然有四种主要的共识方法，但最近在其他学科的分析描述了以频繁修改为特征的方法的巨大多样性。目的：探讨共识研究方法在辅助医学中的应用及特点。方法：采用共识方法对已发表的研究报告进行文献分析，数据来自MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL。两名研究人员进行了摘要筛选、全文审查和数据提取。进行描述性分析。结果：1997 ~ 2024年共发表了161篇辅助医学共识研究。德尔菲法最常见（83 %），其次是NGT（12 %）。美国的研究最多，有44项（26 %），其次是英国33项（20 %），加拿大15项（9 %），挪威12项（7 %），澳大利亚12项（7 %）。54% %的研究报告了作者的修改。在141个德尔菲研究中，31% %证明使用了已发表的报告或方法学指导。结论：以德尔菲法为主导的共识研究越来越普遍。观察到显著的方法学异质性，与方法学和报告指南的接触似乎不常见。在辅助医学研究领域可能需要更强有力的方法指导，以确保共识研究的质量。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Australasian Emergency Care Nursing-Emergency Nursing

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.60%

发文量

审稿时长

37 days

期刊介绍： Australasian Emergency Care is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to supporting emergency nurses, physicians, paramedics and other professionals in advancing the science and practice of emergency care, wherever it is delivered. As the official journal of the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA), Australasian Emergency Care is a conduit for clinical, applied, and theoretical research and knowledge that advances the science and practice of emergency care in original, innovative and challenging ways. The journal serves as a leading voice for the emergency care community, reflecting its inter-professional diversity, and the importance of collaboration and shared decision-making to achieve quality patient outcomes. It is strongly focussed on advancing the patient experience and quality of care across the emergency care continuum, spanning the pre-hospital, hospital and post-hospital settings within Australasia and beyond.