Consensus development for producing diagnostic procedure guidelines: SPECT brain perfusion imaging with exametazime

James Fletcher, S. H. Woolf, H. D. Royal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A method for developing diagnostic practice guidelines is presented in which a team of experts used a semiquantitative scoring system to reach consensus on a standard procedure for SPECT cerebral perfusion imaging. Methods: An expert panel generated a list of elements that they thought were important for the optimal performance of cerebral perfusion imaging as the first phase of a modified Delphi panel technique. Panel members then scored each statement to indicate the importance of that statement for the performance of cerebral perfusion imaging. The scores were recorded for each statement and the average score, s.d. and variance for each statement were determined for each successive panel round. A total of three panel rounds were conducted. The change in average s.d. between scoring rounds was analyzed for significance using both parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: The average s.d. decreased by 35% from 2.1 to 1.32 between the first and final panel round. This change in average s.d., which indicated enhanced consensus, was significant at p <0.0001. Following consensus, all statements were grouped into four categories based on average score: critical elements, important elements, less important elements and elements of uncertain importance. This grouping formed the basis for a guideline summary narrative. Results were generated in 3 mo, at low cost and with clear documentation of rationale. Conclusion: Through simple adaptations of this methodology, expert panels that develop practice guidelines can replace informal discussion with systematic scoring methods to rate the quality of evidence, generalizability to practice conditions, appropriate indications and strength of recommendations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2003-2010
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Nuclear Medicine
Volume35
Issue number12
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Perfusion Imaging
Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography
Neuroimaging
Consensus
Guidelines
Practice Guidelines
Delphi Technique
Documentation
Research Design
Costs and Cost Analysis
exametazime

Keywords

  • cerebral perfusion
  • consensus development
  • Delphi panel
  • practice guidelines
  • SPECT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Consensus development for producing diagnostic procedure guidelines : SPECT brain perfusion imaging with exametazime. / Fletcher, James; Woolf, S. H.; Royal, H. D.

In: Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 35, No. 12, 1994, p. 2003-2010.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d560101539674c848f1ce011b91588e3,
title = "Consensus development for producing diagnostic procedure guidelines: SPECT brain perfusion imaging with exametazime",
abstract = "A method for developing diagnostic practice guidelines is presented in which a team of experts used a semiquantitative scoring system to reach consensus on a standard procedure for SPECT cerebral perfusion imaging. Methods: An expert panel generated a list of elements that they thought were important for the optimal performance of cerebral perfusion imaging as the first phase of a modified Delphi panel technique. Panel members then scored each statement to indicate the importance of that statement for the performance of cerebral perfusion imaging. The scores were recorded for each statement and the average score, s.d. and variance for each statement were determined for each successive panel round. A total of three panel rounds were conducted. The change in average s.d. between scoring rounds was analyzed for significance using both parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: The average s.d. decreased by 35{\%} from 2.1 to 1.32 between the first and final panel round. This change in average s.d., which indicated enhanced consensus, was significant at p <0.0001. Following consensus, all statements were grouped into four categories based on average score: critical elements, important elements, less important elements and elements of uncertain importance. This grouping formed the basis for a guideline summary narrative. Results were generated in 3 mo, at low cost and with clear documentation of rationale. Conclusion: Through simple adaptations of this methodology, expert panels that develop practice guidelines can replace informal discussion with systematic scoring methods to rate the quality of evidence, generalizability to practice conditions, appropriate indications and strength of recommendations.",
keywords = "cerebral perfusion, consensus development, Delphi panel, practice guidelines, SPECT",
author = "James Fletcher and Woolf, {S. H.} and Royal, {H. D.}",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "2003--2010",
journal = "Journal of Nuclear Medicine",
issn = "0161-5505",
publisher = "Society of Nuclear Medicine Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consensus development for producing diagnostic procedure guidelines

T2 - SPECT brain perfusion imaging with exametazime

AU - Fletcher, James

AU - Woolf, S. H.

AU - Royal, H. D.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - A method for developing diagnostic practice guidelines is presented in which a team of experts used a semiquantitative scoring system to reach consensus on a standard procedure for SPECT cerebral perfusion imaging. Methods: An expert panel generated a list of elements that they thought were important for the optimal performance of cerebral perfusion imaging as the first phase of a modified Delphi panel technique. Panel members then scored each statement to indicate the importance of that statement for the performance of cerebral perfusion imaging. The scores were recorded for each statement and the average score, s.d. and variance for each statement were determined for each successive panel round. A total of three panel rounds were conducted. The change in average s.d. between scoring rounds was analyzed for significance using both parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: The average s.d. decreased by 35% from 2.1 to 1.32 between the first and final panel round. This change in average s.d., which indicated enhanced consensus, was significant at p <0.0001. Following consensus, all statements were grouped into four categories based on average score: critical elements, important elements, less important elements and elements of uncertain importance. This grouping formed the basis for a guideline summary narrative. Results were generated in 3 mo, at low cost and with clear documentation of rationale. Conclusion: Through simple adaptations of this methodology, expert panels that develop practice guidelines can replace informal discussion with systematic scoring methods to rate the quality of evidence, generalizability to practice conditions, appropriate indications and strength of recommendations.

AB - A method for developing diagnostic practice guidelines is presented in which a team of experts used a semiquantitative scoring system to reach consensus on a standard procedure for SPECT cerebral perfusion imaging. Methods: An expert panel generated a list of elements that they thought were important for the optimal performance of cerebral perfusion imaging as the first phase of a modified Delphi panel technique. Panel members then scored each statement to indicate the importance of that statement for the performance of cerebral perfusion imaging. The scores were recorded for each statement and the average score, s.d. and variance for each statement were determined for each successive panel round. A total of three panel rounds were conducted. The change in average s.d. between scoring rounds was analyzed for significance using both parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: The average s.d. decreased by 35% from 2.1 to 1.32 between the first and final panel round. This change in average s.d., which indicated enhanced consensus, was significant at p <0.0001. Following consensus, all statements were grouped into four categories based on average score: critical elements, important elements, less important elements and elements of uncertain importance. This grouping formed the basis for a guideline summary narrative. Results were generated in 3 mo, at low cost and with clear documentation of rationale. Conclusion: Through simple adaptations of this methodology, expert panels that develop practice guidelines can replace informal discussion with systematic scoring methods to rate the quality of evidence, generalizability to practice conditions, appropriate indications and strength of recommendations.

KW - cerebral perfusion

KW - consensus development

KW - Delphi panel

KW - practice guidelines

KW - SPECT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027943539&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027943539&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7989985

AN - SCOPUS:0027943539

VL - 35

SP - 2003

EP - 2010

JO - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

JF - Journal of Nuclear Medicine

SN - 0161-5505

IS - 12

ER -