Planning and Reporting Effective Web-Based RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method Panels: Literature Review and Preliminary Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), a variant of the Delphi Method, was developed to synthesize existing evidence and elicit the clinical judgement of medical experts on the appropriate treatment of specific clinical presentations. Technological advances now allow researchers to conduct expert panels on the internet, offering a cost-effective and convenient alternative to the traditional RAM. For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs recently used a web-based RAM to validate clinical recommendations for de-intensifying routine primary care services. A substantial literature describes and tests various aspects of the traditional RAM in health research; yet we know comparatively less about how researchers implement web-based expert panels. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are twofold: (1) to understand how the web-based RAM process is currently used and reported in health research and (2) to provide preliminary reporting guidance for researchers to improve the transparency and reproducibility of reporting practices. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between 2009 and 2019 that used a web-based RAM to measure the appropriateness of medical care. Methodological data from each article were abstracted. The following categories were assessed: composition and characteristics of the web-based expert panels, characteristics of panel procedures, results, and panel satisfaction and engagement. RESULTS: Of the 12 studies meeting the eligibility criteria and reviewed, only 42% (5/12) implemented the full RAM process with the remaining studies opting for a partial approach. Among those studies reporting, the median number of participants at first rating was 42. While 92% (11/12) of studies involved clinicians, 50% (6/12) involved multiple stakeholder types. Our review revealed that the studies failed to report on critical aspects of the RAM process. For example, no studies reported response rates with the denominator of previous rounds, 42% (5/12) did not provide panelists with feedback between rating periods, 50% (6/12) either did not have or did not report on the panel discussion period, and 25% (3/12) did not report on quality measures to assess aspects of the panel process (eg, satisfaction with the process). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting web-based RAM panels will continue to be an appealing option for researchers seeking a safe, efficient, and democratic process of expert agreement. Our literature review uncovered inconsistent reporting frameworks and insufficient detail to evaluate study outcomes. We provide preliminary recommendations for reporting that are both timely and important for producing replicable, high-quality findings. The need for reporting standards is especially critical given that more people may prefer to participate in web-based rather than in-person panels due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

A Gastroenterologist' clinical experience in COVID 19 and in-hospital mortality and length of stay analysis.

OBJECTIVES: COVID19 pandemic has forced physicians from different specialties to assist cases overload. Our aim is to assess gastroenterologist's assistance in COVID-19 by assessing mortality, ICU admission, and length of stay, and seek for risk factors for in-hospital mortality and longer hospital stay. METHODS: A total of 41 COVID-19 patients assisted by gastroenterologist (GI cohort) and 137 assisted by pulmonologist, internal medicine practitioners, and infectious disease specialists (COVID expert cohort) during October-November 2020 were prospectively collected. Clinical, demographic, imaging, and laboratory markers were collected and compared between both cohorts. Bivariate analysis and logistic regression were performed to search for risk factors of mortality and longer hospital stays. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients died (15.1%), 11 were admitted to ICU (6.1%). There were no differences between cohorts in mortality (14.6% vs 15.4%;p = 0.90), ICU admission (12.1% vs 4%;p = 0.13), and length of stay (6.67 ± 4 vs 7.15 ± 4.5 days; p = 0.58). PaO2/FiO2 on admission (OR 0.991;CI95% 0.984-0.998) and age > 70 (OR 17.54;CI95% 3.93-78.22) were independently related to mortality. Age > 70, history of malignancy, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease were related to longer hospital stays (p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p = 0.04, p = 0.02 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 assistance was similar between gastroenterologist and COVID experts when assessing mortality, ICU admission, and length of stay. Age>70 and decreased PaO2/FiO2 on admission were independent risk factors of mortality. Age and several comorbidities were related to longer hospital stay.

Multi-organ point-of-care ultrasound for COVID-19 (PoCUS4COVID): international expert consensus.

COVID-19 has caused great devastation in the past year. Multi-organ point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) including lung ultrasound (LUS) and focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) as a clinical adjunct has played a significant role in triaging, diagnosis and medical management of COVID-19 patients. The expert panel from 27 countries and 6 continents with considerable experience of direct application of PoCUS on COVID-19 patients presents evidence-based consensus using GRADE methodology for the quality of evidence and an expedited, modified-Delphi process for the strength of expert consensus. The use of ultrasound is suggested in many clinical situations related to respiratory, cardiovascular and thromboembolic aspects of COVID-19, comparing well with other imaging modalities. The limitations due to insufficient data are highlighted as opportunities for future research.

European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility recommendations for conducting gastrointestinal motility and function testing in the recovery phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the peak of the COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, care for patients with gastrointestinal motility and functional disorders was largely suspended. In the recovery phases of the pandemic, non-urgent medical care is resumed, but there is a lack of guidance for restarting and safely conducting motility and function testing. Breath tests and insertion of manometry and pH-monitoring probes carry a risk of SARS-CoV-2 spread through droplet formation. METHODS: A panel of experts from the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) evaluated emerging national and single-center recommendations to provide the best current evidence and a pragmatic approach to ensure the safe conduct of motility and function testing for both healthcare professionals and patients. RESULTS: At a general level, this involves evaluation of the urgency of the procedure, evaluation of the infectious risk associated with the patient, the investigation and the healthcare professional(s) involved, provision of the test planning and test units, education and training of staff, and use of personnel protection equipment. Additional guidance is provided for specific procedures such as esophageal manometry, pH monitoring, and breath tests. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The ESNM guidelines provide pragmatic and appropriate guidance for the safe conduct of motility and function testing in the COVID-19 pandemic and early recovery phase.