食管运动无效方法的质量指标开发:改良德尔菲研究。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Journal of clinical gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-15 DOI:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001963
Afrin N Kamal, Priya Kathpalia, David A Leiman, Albert J Bredenoord, John O Clarke, C Prakash Gyawali, David A Katzka, Adriana Lazarescu, John E Pandolfino, Roberto Penagini, Sabine Roman, Edoardo Savarino, Marcelo F Vela, Fouad Otaki
{"title":"食管运动无效方法的质量指标开发:改良德尔菲研究。","authors":"Afrin N Kamal, Priya Kathpalia, David A Leiman, Albert J Bredenoord, John O Clarke, C Prakash Gyawali, David A Katzka, Adriana Lazarescu, John E Pandolfino, Roberto Penagini, Sabine Roman, Edoardo Savarino, Marcelo F Vela, Fouad Otaki","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goals: </strong>Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging.</p><p><strong>Study: </strong>Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"975-980"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study.\",\"authors\":\"Afrin N Kamal, Priya Kathpalia, David A Leiman, Albert J Bredenoord, John O Clarke, C Prakash Gyawali, David A Katzka, Adriana Lazarescu, John E Pandolfino, Roberto Penagini, Sabine Roman, Edoardo Savarino, Marcelo F Vela, Fouad Otaki\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Goals: </strong>Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging.</p><p><strong>Study: </strong>Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"975-980\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534068/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001963\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001963","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:制定食管无效运动(IEM)的质量指标:制定食管无效蠕动(IEM)的质量指标。背景:背景:根据芝加哥分类法,在接受食管高分辨率测压(HRM)检查的患者中,多达 20% 的患者会被发现食管运动无效。研究:研究:我们使用兰德/加州大学洛杉矶分校的适宜性方法(Appropriateness Methods),采用改良德尔菲法(modified-Delphi approach)制定质量指标声明。质量指标是根据先前的文献提出的。在三轮迭代过程中,专家对所提出的质量声明在重要性、科学可接受性、可用性和可行性方面进行独立盲评:结果:所有受邀参与的 10 位食管疾病管理专家都对提出的 12 项质量指标陈述进行了评分。在第一轮评分中,7 项质量指标在大多数类别上的评分意见不一。根据专家小组的建议对陈述进行了修改,并在第 2 轮虚拟讨论后进一步修改,在第 3 轮投票中确定了 2 项质量指标获得全面同意,4 项获得部分同意,1 项未获得任何同意。专家小组就以下概念达成了一致:确定 IEM 是否与患者的临床表现和胃食管反流疾病的管理相关,而不是 IEM 模式;在所有 4 个领域中,专家小组都不同意在 IEM 中使用促进剂;对于在抗反流手术计划中发现 IEM 的价值,专家小组意见不一:结论:采用可靠的方法确定了两项 IEM 质量指标。这些质量指标可以跟踪医生在 HRM 上识别这种测压模式时的表现。这项研究进一步强调了 IEM 所面临的挑战,以及开展更多研究以更好地了解这种测压模式的临床重要性的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study.

Goals: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM).

Background: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging.

Study: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process.

Results: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2's virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient's presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning.

Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信