德尔菲技术在确定整形外科研究重点方面的应用:系统综述

Angus Barber, Guy Stanley, Sarah Goh, Cheryl Hamill, Michael Findlay
{"title":"德尔菲技术在确定整形外科研究重点方面的应用:系统综述","authors":"Angus Barber, Guy Stanley, Sarah Goh, Cheryl Hamill, Michael Findlay","doi":"10.34239/ajops.88487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"Background: Delphi research priority setting exercises in plastic and reconstructive surgery aim to encourage future research in areas that align with clinical needs. This can guide the allocation of research funding and further the knowledge base of the speciality. This systematic review evaluates the content and quality of existing Delphi research priority setting studies in plastic and reconstructive surgery, to inform future studies. Method: A predefined protocol and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The search was performed by a research librarian. Screening and data extraction was performed in duplicate with a third reviewer arbitrating. Primary outcomes included the number of studies and subject areas. Secondary outcomes were the methods and results (including types of stakeholders, uncertainties, numbers of stakeholders, journal impact factor, implementation plans and dissemination plans). The risk of bias was assessed using four domains of quality. Data underwent synthesis with descriptive statistics. Results: Seven articles were included in the review, covering breast reconstruction, craniomaxillofacial, burns, aesthetics, skin and soft tissue, and general plastics. Studies had national or international scope, used either Delphi or modified Delphi methodology, and had a variable number of rounds. Four included studies had funding, and implementation plans were absent in four included studies. Discussion and conclusion: Included studies had a variable methodology, making a direct comparison between studies difficult. Six of the seven included studies had a high or moderate risk of bias, and implementation plans for studies were variable or absent. The review highlights the need for future Delphi research priority setting exercises to have a more standardised method and adhere to quality criteria.\"","PeriodicalId":264055,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","volume":"56 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delphi technique in plastic surgery research priority setting: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Angus Barber, Guy Stanley, Sarah Goh, Cheryl Hamill, Michael Findlay\",\"doi\":\"10.34239/ajops.88487\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\\"Background: Delphi research priority setting exercises in plastic and reconstructive surgery aim to encourage future research in areas that align with clinical needs. This can guide the allocation of research funding and further the knowledge base of the speciality. This systematic review evaluates the content and quality of existing Delphi research priority setting studies in plastic and reconstructive surgery, to inform future studies. Method: A predefined protocol and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The search was performed by a research librarian. Screening and data extraction was performed in duplicate with a third reviewer arbitrating. Primary outcomes included the number of studies and subject areas. Secondary outcomes were the methods and results (including types of stakeholders, uncertainties, numbers of stakeholders, journal impact factor, implementation plans and dissemination plans). The risk of bias was assessed using four domains of quality. Data underwent synthesis with descriptive statistics. Results: Seven articles were included in the review, covering breast reconstruction, craniomaxillofacial, burns, aesthetics, skin and soft tissue, and general plastics. Studies had national or international scope, used either Delphi or modified Delphi methodology, and had a variable number of rounds. Four included studies had funding, and implementation plans were absent in four included studies. Discussion and conclusion: Included studies had a variable methodology, making a direct comparison between studies difficult. Six of the seven included studies had a high or moderate risk of bias, and implementation plans for studies were variable or absent. The review highlights the need for future Delphi research priority setting exercises to have a more standardised method and adhere to quality criteria.\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":264055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"56 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.88487\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.88487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

"背景:整形与重建外科的德尔菲研究优先级设定工作旨在鼓励未来在符合临床需求的领域开展研究。这可以为研究经费的分配提供指导,并进一步完善该专科的知识基础。本系统性综述评估了整形与重建外科现有的德尔菲研究重点设定研究的内容和质量,为今后的研究提供参考。方法:遵循预定方案和 PRISMA 指南。检索工作由一名研究图书管理员负责。筛选和数据提取一式两份,由第三位审稿人进行仲裁。主要结果包括研究数量和主题领域。次要结果包括方法和结果(包括利益相关者类型、不确定性、利益相关者数量、期刊影响因子、实施计划和传播计划)。偏倚风险采用四个质量领域进行评估。通过描述性统计对数据进行综合。结果七篇文章被纳入综述,涉及乳房再造、颅颌面、烧伤、美学、皮肤和软组织以及普通整形。这些研究涉及国内或国际范围,采用德尔菲法或改良德尔菲法,研究轮数各不相同。四项纳入的研究有资金支持,四项纳入的研究没有实施计划。讨论和结论:纳入研究的方法各不相同,因此很难对研究进行直接比较。七项纳入研究中的六项存在高或中度偏倚风险,研究的实施计划各不相同或不存在。本综述强调,未来的德尔菲研究优先级设定工作需要采用更加标准化的方法,并遵守质量标准"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delphi technique in plastic surgery research priority setting: a systematic review
"Background: Delphi research priority setting exercises in plastic and reconstructive surgery aim to encourage future research in areas that align with clinical needs. This can guide the allocation of research funding and further the knowledge base of the speciality. This systematic review evaluates the content and quality of existing Delphi research priority setting studies in plastic and reconstructive surgery, to inform future studies. Method: A predefined protocol and PRISMA guidelines were followed. The search was performed by a research librarian. Screening and data extraction was performed in duplicate with a third reviewer arbitrating. Primary outcomes included the number of studies and subject areas. Secondary outcomes were the methods and results (including types of stakeholders, uncertainties, numbers of stakeholders, journal impact factor, implementation plans and dissemination plans). The risk of bias was assessed using four domains of quality. Data underwent synthesis with descriptive statistics. Results: Seven articles were included in the review, covering breast reconstruction, craniomaxillofacial, burns, aesthetics, skin and soft tissue, and general plastics. Studies had national or international scope, used either Delphi or modified Delphi methodology, and had a variable number of rounds. Four included studies had funding, and implementation plans were absent in four included studies. Discussion and conclusion: Included studies had a variable methodology, making a direct comparison between studies difficult. Six of the seven included studies had a high or moderate risk of bias, and implementation plans for studies were variable or absent. The review highlights the need for future Delphi research priority setting exercises to have a more standardised method and adhere to quality criteria."
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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