Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Selecting and defining the clinical questions and outcomes of Guideline for the Emergency Treatment of Anaphylaxis / 北京大学学报(医学版)
Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ; (6): 715-718, 2020.
Article Dans Chinois | WPRIM | ID: wpr-942066
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE@#To select and define the clinical questions and outcomes of Guideline for the Emergency Treatment of Anaphylaxis.@*METHODS@#A draft including clinical questions, which could be divided into foreground questions and background questions, and outcomes was drawn and revised by the secretary group for the guideline referring to the present guidelines with the guidance of a panel consisting of 7 experienced clinical medicine, pharmacy and nursing experts. Foreground questions and outcomes of the draft were voted into a final version after three rounds of counsels of 22 experienced medicine, pharmacy and nursing clinical experts using Delphi method including 3 rounds of inquiry. And the background questions were directly included in the guideline after the 22 experts' thorough revising. The research was carried out under the supervision of method ologists. Active coefficient, coefficient of variation and the frequencies of each score were calculated for quality control.@*RESULTS@#The draft of 34 foreground questions, 6 background questions and 6 outcomes was finally drawn up after thorough selecting and consulting. The 6 background questions revised by the clinical experts were all included. After three rounds of Delphi method, 28 pivotal clinical questions covering the diagnosis, preparation for the treatment, treatment and administration after the treatment, and 6 outcomes were defined and included for the guideline. The rest of the foreground questions, 4 of which were recognized as essential and 2 as important, were excluded from the guideline and left for further revising or updating. As for the outcomes, 4 of them were recognized as critical and the rest as important. The experts contributing to the research were active as the active coefficient reached 100%, and the degree of consensus was fine as the frequencies of the feedback scoring equal to or greater than 4 for all the 28 foreground questions included were greater than 75% and the result was settled in the first round. And 2 outcomes, fatality rate and severity, reached a higher degree of consensus with coefficient of variation less than 15%.@*CONCLUSION@#After thorough and rigorous selecting, the clinical questions and outcomes to be included in the Guideline for the Emergency Treatment of Anaphylaxis were finally selected and defined via Delphi method, guiding the future development of the guidelines.
Sujets)

Texte intégral: Disponible Indice: WPRIM (Pacifique occidental) Sujet Principal: Plan de recherche / Méthode Delphi / Consensus / Traitement d'urgence / Anaphylaxie Type d'étude: Guide de pratique Limites du sujet: Humains langue: Chinois Texte intégral: Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) Année: 2020 Type: Article

Documents relatifs à ce sujet

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Texte intégral: Disponible Indice: WPRIM (Pacifique occidental) Sujet Principal: Plan de recherche / Méthode Delphi / Consensus / Traitement d'urgence / Anaphylaxie Type d'étude: Guide de pratique Limites du sujet: Humains langue: Chinois Texte intégral: Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) Année: 2020 Type: Article