Cargando…

Optimizing the use of expert panel reference diagnoses in diagnostic studies of multidimensional syndromes

BACKGROUND: In the absence of a gold standard, a panel of experts can be invited to assign a reference diagnosis for use in research. Available literature offers limited guidance on assembling and working with an expert panel for this purpose. We aimed to develop a protocol for an expert panel conse...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Handels, Ron L H, Wolfs, Claire A G, Aalten, Pauline, Bossuyt, Patrick M M, Joore, Manuela A, Leentjens, Albert F G, Severens, Johan L, Verhey, Frans R J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25280531
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12883-014-0190-3
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: In the absence of a gold standard, a panel of experts can be invited to assign a reference diagnosis for use in research. Available literature offers limited guidance on assembling and working with an expert panel for this purpose. We aimed to develop a protocol for an expert panel consensus diagnosis and evaluated its applicability in a pilot project. METHODS: An adjusted Delphi method was used, which started with the assessment of clinical vignettes by 3 experts individually, followed by a consensus discussion meeting to solve diagnostic discrepancies. A panel facilitator ensured that all experts were able to express their views, and encouraged the use of argumentation to arrive at a specific diagnosis, until consensus was reached by all experts. Eleven vignettes of patients suspected of having a primary neurodegenerative disease were presented to the experts. Clinical information was provided stepwise and included medical history, neurological, physical and cognitive function, brain MRI scan, and follow-up assessments over 2 years. After the consensus discussion meeting, the procedure was evaluated by the experts. RESULTS: The average degree of consensus for the reference diagnosis increased from 52% after individual assessment of the vignettes to 94% after the consensus discussion meeting. Average confidence in the diagnosis after individual assessment was 85%. This did not increase after the consensus discussion meeting. The process evaluation led to several recommendations for improvement of the protocol. CONCLUSION: A protocol for attaining a reference diagnosis based on expert panel consensus was shown feasible in research practice. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12883-014-0190-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.