Cervical radiculopathy treatment experts' consensus to establish radiculopathy type by using the modified Delphi meth-od / 中华骨科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective Cervical radiculopathy treatment experts' consensus to establish radiculopathy type by using the modified Delphi method. Methods Use document retrieval method to review information and articles about the treatment guidelines and articles of cervical radiculopathy including domestic and international areas, established a protocol about clini?cal consensus of the treatments for cervical radiculopathy. This protocol included 23 questions (the effective proportion of non?operating therapy, neck immobilization, physiotherapy, pharmacologic treatment, surgical indications, contraindications, anteri?or surgical decompression, anterior surgical implants). We performed a modified Delphi survey in which current professional opinions from experienced experts, representing from almost all of the Chinese provinces, were gathered. And then we modi?fied the protocol according to those professional opinions. Three rounds were performed and finally we established consensus. Consensus was achieved with ≥70% agreement. Results The panel included 30 experienced experts. The recycling question?naire's quantity of three rounds were 30(100%), 24(80%) and 16(53.3%) respectively. After three expert assessments, there were 18 questions which achieved with≥70%agreement and these questions accounted for 64.3%(18/28) of all the questions. Consen?sus of the treatments for cervical radiculopathy was reached on 7 aspects, includingthe effective proportion of non?operating thera?py (1 question), neck immobilization (1 question), physiotherapy (1 question), pharmacologic treatment (5 questions), surgical indi?cations (3 questions), contraindications (4 questions), surgery (3 questions). Conclusion This modified Delphi study had reached a consensus concerning several treatment issues on cervical radiculopathy which had strong representativeness of experts and good convergence of opinions. In the absence of high?level evidence, at present, these experts' opinion findings will guide health care providers to define appropriate treatment in their regions. Areas with no consensus provide excellent insight for future research.