在一般实践中对眩晕患者进行诊断准确性研究的鉴定试验评估:德尔菲研究。

IF 2.6 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anna-Marie R Leemeyer, Andrew K Ross, Tjasse D Bruintjes, Jochen W L Cals, Roeland B van Leeuwen, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte, Vincent A van Vugt, Otto R Maarsingh
{"title":"在一般实践中对眩晕患者进行诊断准确性研究的鉴定试验评估:德尔菲研究。","authors":"Anna-Marie R Leemeyer, Andrew K Ross, Tjasse D Bruintjes, Jochen W L Cals, Roeland B van Leeuwen, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte, Vincent A van Vugt, Otto R Maarsingh","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-02920-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vertigo is a common symptom that strongly impacts patients' quality of life. More than 80% of patients experiencing vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP). The GP's'diagnostic toolkit' for vertigo has serious limitations, though, because diagnostic accuracy studies on conditions that may cause vertigo have never been performed in a general practice setting. Our aim was to determine which tests should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted an online Delphi procedure involving national and international experts. The experts were asked to judge a selection of 40 diagnostic tests based on the Dutch GP guideline on vestibular symptoms, supplemented by tests identified during a systematic review. Panellists were allowed to suggest additional tests after the first round. In case of consensus of at least 70%, a test was included or excluded. We also conducted a secondary sub-analysis of our Delphi procedure to demonstrate non-dominance of Dutch experts within our expert panel. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A panel of 20 experts from five countries, including 7 specialists in otolaryngology, 6 neurologists and 7 GPs, participated in the Delphi procedure. The panel judged 46 diagnostic tests in total, with 6 additional tests added to the original selection based on suggestions by experts. After the first two rounds (100% response rate), 16 tests were included, 22 tests were excluded and no consensus was reached on 8 tests. During the consensus round, one of the 8 tests was added to the included 16 tests. Of these 17 tests, 15 are recommended by the Dutch GP guideline, supplemented by the non-recommended Tandem walking test and the Romberg test.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An international expert panel reached consensus on 17 tests for vertigo in general practice that should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"238"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12318412/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying tests to evaluate in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice: a Delphi study.\",\"authors\":\"Anna-Marie R Leemeyer, Andrew K Ross, Tjasse D Bruintjes, Jochen W L Cals, Roeland B van Leeuwen, Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte, Vincent A van Vugt, Otto R Maarsingh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12875-025-02920-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Vertigo is a common symptom that strongly impacts patients' quality of life. More than 80% of patients experiencing vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP). The GP's'diagnostic toolkit' for vertigo has serious limitations, though, because diagnostic accuracy studies on conditions that may cause vertigo have never been performed in a general practice setting. Our aim was to determine which tests should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted an online Delphi procedure involving national and international experts. The experts were asked to judge a selection of 40 diagnostic tests based on the Dutch GP guideline on vestibular symptoms, supplemented by tests identified during a systematic review. Panellists were allowed to suggest additional tests after the first round. In case of consensus of at least 70%, a test was included or excluded. We also conducted a secondary sub-analysis of our Delphi procedure to demonstrate non-dominance of Dutch experts within our expert panel. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A panel of 20 experts from five countries, including 7 specialists in otolaryngology, 6 neurologists and 7 GPs, participated in the Delphi procedure. The panel judged 46 diagnostic tests in total, with 6 additional tests added to the original selection based on suggestions by experts. After the first two rounds (100% response rate), 16 tests were included, 22 tests were excluded and no consensus was reached on 8 tests. During the consensus round, one of the 8 tests was added to the included 16 tests. Of these 17 tests, 15 are recommended by the Dutch GP guideline, supplemented by the non-recommended Tandem walking test and the Romberg test.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An international expert panel reached consensus on 17 tests for vertigo in general practice that should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC primary care\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"238\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12318412/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC primary care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02920-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02920-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

眩晕是严重影响患者生活质量的常见症状。超过80%的眩晕患者主要由他们的全科医生治疗。全科医生对眩晕的“诊断工具包”有严重的局限性,因为对可能导致眩晕的条件的诊断准确性研究从未在一般实践环境中进行过。我们的目的是确定在一般实践中眩晕患者的诊断准确性研究中应该调查哪些测试。方法:对国内外专家进行在线德尔菲调查。专家们被要求根据荷兰全科医生前庭症状指南选出40种诊断测试,并辅以系统评价中确定的测试。小组成员被允许在第一轮之后提出额外的测试建议。如果一致性至少达到70%,则纳入或排除一项测试。我们还对我们的德尔菲程序进行了二次子分析,以证明荷兰专家在我们的专家小组中不占优势。数据分析采用描述性统计和内容分析。数据分析采用描述性统计和内容分析。结果:来自5个国家的20名专家参与了德尔菲程序,其中包括7名耳鼻喉科专家、6名神经科专家和7名全科医生。该小组总共评判了46种诊断测试,根据专家的建议,在原有选择的基础上增加了6种额外的测试。在前两轮(100%应答率)之后,16项测试被纳入,22项测试被排除,8项测试未达成共识。在协商一致回合中,8项测试中的一项被添加到包含的16项测试中。在这17项测试中,有15项是荷兰GP指南推荐的,辅以不推荐的串联行走测试和Romberg测试。结论:一个国际专家小组就一般实践中的17种眩晕测试达成共识,这些测试应该在诊断准确性研究中进行调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying tests to evaluate in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice: a Delphi study.

Introduction: Vertigo is a common symptom that strongly impacts patients' quality of life. More than 80% of patients experiencing vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP). The GP's'diagnostic toolkit' for vertigo has serious limitations, though, because diagnostic accuracy studies on conditions that may cause vertigo have never been performed in a general practice setting. Our aim was to determine which tests should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study for patients with vertigo in general practice.

Method: We conducted an online Delphi procedure involving national and international experts. The experts were asked to judge a selection of 40 diagnostic tests based on the Dutch GP guideline on vestibular symptoms, supplemented by tests identified during a systematic review. Panellists were allowed to suggest additional tests after the first round. In case of consensus of at least 70%, a test was included or excluded. We also conducted a secondary sub-analysis of our Delphi procedure to demonstrate non-dominance of Dutch experts within our expert panel. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

Results: A panel of 20 experts from five countries, including 7 specialists in otolaryngology, 6 neurologists and 7 GPs, participated in the Delphi procedure. The panel judged 46 diagnostic tests in total, with 6 additional tests added to the original selection based on suggestions by experts. After the first two rounds (100% response rate), 16 tests were included, 22 tests were excluded and no consensus was reached on 8 tests. During the consensus round, one of the 8 tests was added to the included 16 tests. Of these 17 tests, 15 are recommended by the Dutch GP guideline, supplemented by the non-recommended Tandem walking test and the Romberg test.

Conclusions: An international expert panel reached consensus on 17 tests for vertigo in general practice that should be investigated in a diagnostic accuracy study.

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
4.40
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信