Attenzione: i dati modificati non sono ancora stati salvati. Per confermare inserimenti o cancellazioni di voci è necessario confermare con il tasto SALVA/INSERISCI in fondo alla pagina
Background: The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international collaborative group set up to study anastomotic leak outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. This Delphi study aimed to prioritize future research areas of unmet clinical need in RCTs to reduce anastomotic leaks.Methods: A modified Delphi process was overseen by the OGAA committee, national leads, and engaged clinicians from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). A three-stage iterative process was used to prioritize research topics, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), and two rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3) addressing research priority and ability to recruit. Stratified analyses were performed by country income.Results: In stage 1, the steering committee proposed research topics across six domains: preoperative optimization, surgical oncology, technical approach, anastomotic technique, enhanced recovery and nutrition, and management of leaks. In stages 2 and stage 3, 192 and 171 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Prioritized research topics include prehabilitation, anastomotic technique, and timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Stratified analyses by country income demonstrated no significant differences in research priorities between HICs and LMICs. However, for ability to recruit, there were significant differences between LMICs and HICs for themes related to the technical approach (minimally invasive, width of gastric tube, ischaemic preconditioning) and location of the anastomosis.Conclusion: Several areas of research priority are consistent across LMICs and HICs, but discrepancies in ability to recruit by country income will inform future study design.
Anastomotic leak following oesophagectomy: research priorities from an international Delphi consensus study
Kamarajah, Sivesh K;Mohamed, Imran;Nepogodiev, Dmitri;Evans, Richard P T;Hodson, James;Griffiths, Ewen A;Singh, Pritam;Kamarajah, Sivesh K;Griffiths, Ewen A;Singh, Pritam;Alderson, Derek;Bundred, James;Evans, Richard;Gossage, James;Griffiths, Ewen A;Jefferies, Benjamin;Kamarajah, Sivesh K;McKay, Siobhan;Mohamed, Imran;Nepogodiev, Dmitri;Siaw-Acheampong, Kobby;Singh, Pritam;van Hillegersberg, Richard;Vohra, Ravinder;Wanigsooriya, Kasun;Whitehouse, Tony;Bekele, A;Achiam, M P;Ahmed, H;Ainsworth, A;Akhtar, K;Akkapulu, N;Al-Khyatt, W;Alasmar, M;Alemu, B N;Alfieri, R;Alkhaffaf, B;Alvarez, L S;Amahu, V;Andreollo, N A;Arias, F;Ariyarathenam, A;Arndt, A;Athanasiou, A;Azagra, J S;Baban, C;Babor, R;Baili, E;Balla, A;Beenen, E;Bendixen, M;Bennett, J;Bergeat, D;Bernardes, A J;Bernardi, D;Berrisford, R;Bianchi, A;Bjelovic, M;Blencowe, N;Boddy, A;Bogdan, S;Bolger, J;Bonavina, L;Bouras, G;Bouwense, S;Bowrey, D;Bragg, D;Bright, T N;Broderick, S;Buduhan, G;Byrne, B;Carey, D;Carroll, P;Carrott, P;Casaca, R;Castro, R G;Catton, J;Cerdeira, M P;Chang, A C;Charalabopoulos, A;Chaudry, A;Choh, C;Ciprian, B;Ciubotaru, C;Coe, P;Colak, E;Colino, R B;Colucci, N;Costa, P M;Daniela, K;Das, N;Davies, A;Davies, N;de Manzoni, G;del Val, I D;Dexter, S;Dolan, J;Donlon, N;Donohoe, C;Duffy, J;Dwerryhouse, S;Egberts, J H;Ekwunife, C;Elhadi, A;Elhadi, M;Elliott, J A;Elnagar, H;Elnagar, F;Faraj, H A;Farooq, N;Fearon, N;Fekaj, E;Forshaw, M;Freire, J;Gačevski, G;Gaedcke, J;Giacopuzzi, S;Gijón, M M;Gisbertz, S;Golcher, H;Gordon, A;Gossage, J;Griffiths, E;Grimminger, P;Guner, A;Gutknecht, S;Harustiak, T;Hedberg, J;Heisterkamp, J;Hii, M;Hindmarsh, A;Holm, J;Hornby, S;Isik, A;Izbicki, J;Jagadesham, V;Jaunoo, S;Johansson, J;Johnson, M A;Johnston, B;Kapoulas, S;Kauppi, J;Kauppila, J H;Kechagias, A;Kelly, M;Kelty, C;Kennedy, A;Khan, M;Khattak, S;Kidane, B;Kjaer, D W;Klarenbeek, B;Korkolis, D P;Koshy, R M;Krantz, S;Lagarde, S;Larsen, M H;Lau, P C;Leeder, P C;Leite, J S;Liakakos, T;Madhavan, A;Mahdi, S I;Mahendran, H A;Mahmoodzadeh, H;Majbar, A;Manatakis, D;Markar, S;Martijnse, I;Matei, B;Matos da Costa, P;McCormack, K;McNally, S;Meriläinen, S;Merrett, N;Migliore, M;Mingol, F;Khan, M;Mitton, D;Mogoanta, S S;Mönig, S P;Moorthy, K;Muhinga, M;Mwachiro, M;Naeem, A;Nasir, I;Navidi, M;Negoi, I;Negoiță, V;Niazi, S K;Nilsson, M;Pazdro, A;Pera, M;Perez, C J;Perivoliotis, K;Peters, C;Phillips, A W;Powell, A;Prove, L;Pucher, P H;Rahman, S;Räsänen, J V;Read, M;Reeh, M;Reim, D;Reynolds, J;Robb, W B;Robertson, K;Rodica, B;Rosero, G;Rosman, C;Saadeh, L;Santos, EG;Saunders, J;Sayyed, R;Schizas, D;Scurtu, R R;Sekhniaidze, D;Serralheiro, P A;Sevinç, B;Sgromo, B;Shakeel, O;Siemsen, M;Skipworth, R;Smith, B;Soares, A;Spillane, J;Steliga, M A;Sundbom, M;Sydiuk, A;Takahashi, A M L;Talbot, M;Tan, B;Tareen, M A;Tewari, N;Tez, M;Theodorou, D;Tita, A;Toledo, E;Townend, P J;Triantafyllou, T;Trugeda, M;Tucker, O;Turner, P;Turrado, V;Underwood, T;Vaccari, S;Valmasoni, M;van Berge Henegouwen, M;van Boxel, G;van den Berg, J W;van der Sluis, P;van Hillegersberg, R;van Lanschot, J J B;van Workum, F;Vickers, J;Videira, J;Viswanath, Y;Vohra, R;Voon, K;Wadley, M;Walker, R;Wallner, B;Walsh, T N;Weindelmayer, J;Welch, N;Wheatley, T;Wijnhoven, B;Wong, L F;Yanni, F;Yeung, J
2021
Abstract
Background: The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international collaborative group set up to study anastomotic leak outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. This Delphi study aimed to prioritize future research areas of unmet clinical need in RCTs to reduce anastomotic leaks.Methods: A modified Delphi process was overseen by the OGAA committee, national leads, and engaged clinicians from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). A three-stage iterative process was used to prioritize research topics, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), and two rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3) addressing research priority and ability to recruit. Stratified analyses were performed by country income.Results: In stage 1, the steering committee proposed research topics across six domains: preoperative optimization, surgical oncology, technical approach, anastomotic technique, enhanced recovery and nutrition, and management of leaks. In stages 2 and stage 3, 192 and 171 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Prioritized research topics include prehabilitation, anastomotic technique, and timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Stratified analyses by country income demonstrated no significant differences in research priorities between HICs and LMICs. However, for ability to recruit, there were significant differences between LMICs and HICs for themes related to the technical approach (minimally invasive, width of gastric tube, ischaemic preconditioning) and location of the anastomosis.Conclusion: Several areas of research priority are consistent across LMICs and HICs, but discrepancies in ability to recruit by country income will inform future study design.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3407613
Citazioni
5
6
5
ND
social impact
Conferma cancellazione
Sei sicuro che questo prodotto debba essere cancellato?
simulazione ASN
Il report seguente simula gli indicatori relativi alla propria produzione scientifica in relazione alle soglie ASN 2023-2025 del proprio SC/SSD. Si ricorda che il superamento dei valori soglia (almeno 2 su 3) è requisito necessario ma non sufficiente al conseguimento dell'abilitazione. La simulazione si basa sui dati IRIS e sugli indicatori bibliometrici alla data indicata e non tiene conto di eventuali periodi di congedo obbligatorio, che in sede di domanda ASN danno diritto a incrementi percentuali dei valori. La simulazione può differire dall'esito di un’eventuale domanda ASN sia per errori di catalogazione e/o dati mancanti in IRIS, sia per la variabilità dei dati bibliometrici nel tempo. Si consideri che Anvur calcola i valori degli indicatori all'ultima data utile per la presentazione delle domande.
La presente simulazione è stata realizzata sulla base delle specifiche raccolte sul tavolo ER del Focus Group IRIS coordinato dall’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e delle regole riportate nel DM 589/2018 e allegata Tabella A. Cineca, l’Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia e il Focus Group IRIS non si assumono alcuna responsabilità in merito all’uso che il diretto interessato o terzi faranno della simulazione. Si specifica inoltre che la simulazione contiene calcoli effettuati con dati e algoritmi di pubblico dominio e deve quindi essere considerata come un mero ausilio al calcolo svolgibile manualmente o con strumenti equivalenti.