6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Consensus on a standardised treatment pathway algorithm for lumbar spinal stenosis: an international Delphi study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spinal condition in older adults associated with disability, diminished quality of life, and substantial healthcare costs. Individual symptoms and needs vary. With sparse and sometimes inconsistent evidence to guide clinical decision-making, variable clinical care may lead to unsatisfactory patient outcomes and inefficient use of healthcare resources.

          Methods

          A three-phase modified Delphi study comprising four consensus rounds was conducted on behalf of the International Taskforce for the Diagnosis and Management of LSS to develop a treatment algorithm based on multi-professional international expert consensus. Participants with expertise in the assessment and management of people with LSS were invited using an international distribution process used for two previous Delphi studies led by the Taskforce. Separate treatment pathways for patients with different symptom types and severity were developed and incorporated into a proposed treatment algorithm through consensus rounds 1 to 3. Agreement with the proposed algorithm was evaluated in the final consensus round.

          Results

          The final algorithm combines stratified and stepped approaches. When indicated, immediate investigation and surgery is advocated. Otherwise, a stepped approach is suggested when self-directed care is unsatisfactory. This starts with tailored rehabilitation, then more complex multidisciplinary care, investigations and surgery options if needed. Treatment options in each step depend on clinical phenotype and symptom severity. Treatment response guides pathway entrance and exit points. Of 397 study participants, 86% rated their agreement ≥ 4 for the proposed algorithm on a 0–6 scale, of which 22% completely agreed. Only 7% disagreed. Over 70% of participants felt that the algorithm would be useful for clinicians in public healthcare (both primary care and specialist settings) and in private healthcare settings, and that a simplified version would help patients in shared decision-making.

          Conclusions

          International and multi-professional agreement was achieved for a proposed LSS treatment algorithm developed through expert consensus . The algorithm advocates different pathway options depending on clinical indications. It is not intended as a treatment protocol and will require evaluation against current care for clinical and cost-effectiveness. It may, however, serve as a clinical guide until evidence is sufficient to inform a fully stratified care model.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05485-5.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

            To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus

              The Delphi technique is a widely used and accepted method for gathering data from respondents within their domain of expertise. The technique is designed as a group communication process which aims to achieve a convergence of opinion on a specific real-world issue. The Delphi process has been used in various fields of study such as program planning, needs assessment, policy determination, and resource utilization to develop a full range of alternatives, explore or expose underlying assumptions, as well as correlate judgments on a topic spanning a wide range of disciplines. The Delphi technique is well suited as a method for consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires delivered using multiple iterations to collect data from a panel of selected subjects. Subject selection, time frames for conducting and completing a study, the possibility of low response rates, and unintentionally guiding feedback from the respondent group are areas which should be considered when designing and implementing a Delphi study. Accessed 68,465 times on https://pareonline.net from August 30, 2007 to December 31, 2019. For downloads from January 1, 2020 forward, please click on the PlumX Metrics link to the right.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                c.comer@leeds.ac.uk
                Carlo.Ammendolia@sinaihealthsystem.ca
                mbattie@uwo.ca
                andre.bussieres@mcgill.ca
                Jeremy.fairbank@gtc.ox.ac.uk
                andyhaig@umich.edu
                markus.melloh@vuw.ac.nz
                A.redmond@leeds.ac.uk
                Mjs5@pitt.edu
                Cjs228@pitt.edu
                clane@mtroyal.ca
                Esther.williamson@ndorms.ox.ac.uk
                arnold.wong@polyu.edu.hk
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2474
                8 June 2022
                8 June 2022
                2022
                : 23
                : 550
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.439761.e, ISNI 0000 0004 0491 6948, Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, ; Leeds, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.9909.9, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8403, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Leeds, ; Leeds, UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.17063.33, ISNI 0000 0001 2157 2938, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Toronto and Mount Sinai Hospital, ; Toronto, ON Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.39381.30, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8884, Faculty of Health Sciences and Western’s Bone & Joint Institute, , Western University, ; London, ON Canada
                [5 ]GRID grid.14709.3b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8649, School of Physical Medicine & Occupational Therapy, , McGill University, ; Montreal, Canada
                [6 ]GRID grid.265703.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2197 8284, Université du Québec À Trois-Rivières, ; Trois-Rivières, QC Canada
                [7 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, , University of Oxford, ; Oxford, UK
                [8 ]GRID grid.461589.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0224 3960, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford Nuffield NHS Trust, ; Windmill Road, Oxford, UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.214458.e, ISNI 0000000086837370, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, , University of Michigan, ; Ann Arbor, USA
                [10 ]GRID grid.267827.e, ISNI 0000 0001 2292 3111, Faculty of Health, , Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington, ; Wellington, New Zealand
                [11 ]GRID grid.19739.35, ISNI 0000000122291644, Institute of Health Sciences, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, ; Winterthur, Switzerland
                [12 ]GRID grid.1012.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7910, Curtin Medical School, Curtin University and UWA Medical School, University of Western Australia, ; Bentley, Australia
                [13 ]GRID grid.9909.9, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8403, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, , University of Leeds, ; Leeds, UK
                [14 ]GRID grid.21925.3d, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9000, Department of Physical Therapy, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, , University of Pittsburgh, ; Pittsburgh, PA USA
                [15 ]GRID grid.21925.3d, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9000, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, , University of Pittsburgh, ; Pittsburgh, PA USA
                [16 ]GRID grid.411852.b, ISNI 0000 0000 9943 9777, Department of Health and Physical Education, , Mount Royal University, ; Calgary, Canada
                [17 ]GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, , Centre for Rehabilitation Research, University of Oxford, ; Windmill Road, Oxford, UK
                [18 ]GRID grid.16890.36, ISNI 0000 0004 1764 6123, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, ; Hung Hom, Hong Kong SAR, China
                Article
                5485
                10.1186/s12891-022-05485-5
                9175311
                35676677
                9d038cac-c868-42db-bd3a-b36e19727c3c
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 12 January 2022
                : 27 April 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research, UK
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Orthopedics
                consensus,delphi technique,experts,lumbar spinal stenosis,algorithm,clinical practice guideline

                Comments

                Comment on this article