护理点超声研究报告标准(SPUR):一个改进的德尔福,以开发一个报告护理点超声研究的框架。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Nikolai Schnittke, Frances M Russell, Michael Gottlieb, Samuel H F Lam, David O Kessler, Lynn P Roppolo, Stephanie C Demasi, Patricia Henwood, Yiju Teresa Liu, Jennifer R Marin, Jason Nomura, Joseph R Pare
{"title":"护理点超声研究报告标准(SPUR):一个改进的德尔福,以开发一个报告护理点超声研究的框架。","authors":"Nikolai Schnittke, Frances M Russell, Michael Gottlieb, Samuel H F Lam, David O Kessler, Lynn P Roppolo, Stephanie C Demasi, Patricia Henwood, Yiju Teresa Liu, Jennifer R Marin, Jason Nomura, Joseph R Pare","doi":"10.1111/acem.70069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a bedside diagnostic modality that depends on technical, operator-specific, patient-specific, and clinical context factors. Existing research reporting guidelines do not explicitly address these considerations as they pertain to replicability and generalizability of POCUS studies. The objective of this study was to create a framework to assist investigators, reviewers, and clinicians in reporting and evaluating the quality of POCUS research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a two-stage consensus-building approach. First, a steering committee reviewed available literature and existing guidelines to generate a novel list of items and explanatory subitems relevant to POCUS research. We vetted the list by soliciting public comments from individuals affiliated with POCUS-oriented professional organizations. Second, a consensus panel of experts, defined as POCUS researchers with a minimum of three first or senior author, POCUS-relevant publications completed a three-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of the panel. Items that did not reach consensus after three rounds were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty POCUS experts participated in the study, completing all three survey rounds. The panel reached consensus to include 19/21 items and 62/119 subitems. The resulting instrument addresses variables related to technical hardware and settings (three items), specifics of the POCUS examination (two items), participant characteristics (two items), operator characteristics (five items), data analysis and interpretation (three items), and study-specific considerations (four items).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Standards for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR) can aid researchers, reviewers, and clinicians in the design, dissemination, and critical appraisal of POCUS research.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standards for Point-of-care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR): A modified Delphi to develop a framework for reporting point-of-care ultrasound research.\",\"authors\":\"Nikolai Schnittke, Frances M Russell, Michael Gottlieb, Samuel H F Lam, David O Kessler, Lynn P Roppolo, Stephanie C Demasi, Patricia Henwood, Yiju Teresa Liu, Jennifer R Marin, Jason Nomura, Joseph R Pare\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.70069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a bedside diagnostic modality that depends on technical, operator-specific, patient-specific, and clinical context factors. Existing research reporting guidelines do not explicitly address these considerations as they pertain to replicability and generalizability of POCUS studies. The objective of this study was to create a framework to assist investigators, reviewers, and clinicians in reporting and evaluating the quality of POCUS research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We applied a two-stage consensus-building approach. First, a steering committee reviewed available literature and existing guidelines to generate a novel list of items and explanatory subitems relevant to POCUS research. We vetted the list by soliciting public comments from individuals affiliated with POCUS-oriented professional organizations. Second, a consensus panel of experts, defined as POCUS researchers with a minimum of three first or senior author, POCUS-relevant publications completed a three-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of the panel. Items that did not reach consensus after three rounds were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty POCUS experts participated in the study, completing all three survey rounds. The panel reached consensus to include 19/21 items and 62/119 subitems. The resulting instrument addresses variables related to technical hardware and settings (three items), specifics of the POCUS examination (two items), participant characteristics (two items), operator characteristics (five items), data analysis and interpretation (three items), and study-specific considerations (four items).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Standards for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR) can aid researchers, reviewers, and clinicians in the design, dissemination, and critical appraisal of POCUS research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70069\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70069","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:即时超声(POCUS)是一种床边诊断方式,它取决于技术、操作者特异性、患者特异性和临床环境因素。现有的研究报告指南没有明确地处理这些考虑因素,因为它们涉及POCUS研究的可重复性和概括性。本研究的目的是建立一个框架,以协助研究者、审稿人和临床医生报告和评估POCUS研究的质量。方法:采用两阶段共识建立方法。首先,指导委员会审查了现有文献和现有准则,编制了一份与POCUS研究有关的新的项目和解释性分项目清单。我们通过征求与pous相关的专业组织的个人的公众意见来审查名单。其次,一个专家共识小组,定义为POCUS研究人员至少有三个第一或高级作者,POCUS相关的出版物完成了三轮德尔菲调查。共识定义为≥80%的专家组成员同意。经过三轮谈判仍未达成共识的项目被排除在外。结果:20位POCUS专家参与了研究,完成了三轮调查。小组一致同意列入19/21个项目和62/119个分项目。由此产生的仪器解决了与技术硬件和设置相关的变量(三个项目),POCUS检查的细节(两个项目),参与者特征(两个项目),操作员特征(五个项目),数据分析和解释(三个项目)以及研究特定考虑(四个项目)。结论:《护理点超声研究报告标准》(SPUR)可以帮助研究人员、审稿人和临床医生设计、传播和批判性评价POCUS研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Standards for Point-of-care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR): A modified Delphi to develop a framework for reporting point-of-care ultrasound research.

Background: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a bedside diagnostic modality that depends on technical, operator-specific, patient-specific, and clinical context factors. Existing research reporting guidelines do not explicitly address these considerations as they pertain to replicability and generalizability of POCUS studies. The objective of this study was to create a framework to assist investigators, reviewers, and clinicians in reporting and evaluating the quality of POCUS research.

Methods: We applied a two-stage consensus-building approach. First, a steering committee reviewed available literature and existing guidelines to generate a novel list of items and explanatory subitems relevant to POCUS research. We vetted the list by soliciting public comments from individuals affiliated with POCUS-oriented professional organizations. Second, a consensus panel of experts, defined as POCUS researchers with a minimum of three first or senior author, POCUS-relevant publications completed a three-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement by ≥80% of the panel. Items that did not reach consensus after three rounds were excluded.

Results: Twenty POCUS experts participated in the study, completing all three survey rounds. The panel reached consensus to include 19/21 items and 62/119 subitems. The resulting instrument addresses variables related to technical hardware and settings (three items), specifics of the POCUS examination (two items), participant characteristics (two items), operator characteristics (five items), data analysis and interpretation (three items), and study-specific considerations (four items).

Conclusions: The Standards for Point-of-Care Ultrasound Research Reporting (SPUR) can aid researchers, reviewers, and clinicians in the design, dissemination, and critical appraisal of POCUS research.

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
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信