: Background: The Delphi method is increasingly used in otolaryngology to develop consensus in subjects lacking robust evidence. In these contexts, consensus documents play a dual role: they provide structured expert guidance while determining shared principles adaptable to the individual patient. Nevertheless, the methodological rigor and reporting consistency of Delphi studies remain variable, raising concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and potential bias. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for Delphi-based consensus studies in otolaryngology. Fully published studies in English, Italian, German, French, or Spanish were included. Each article was assessed using established methodological frameworks for consensus development, bias domains described in the methodological literature, and the DELPHISTAR reporting checklist. Reliability and completeness scores were calculated to enable comparisons. Results: Out of 3168 unique records, 86 studies were included. Most defined their purpose and consensus criteria, but transparency regarding panel selection, anonymity, feedback, and criteria for stopping the consensus process was often missing. Based on methodological bias domains, only 9 studies (10.5%) reached a "good" reliability score, while the majority were rated as "fair." According to DELPHISTAR, just 3 studies (3.5%) showed good levels of completeness. Reporting completeness and risk of bias proved heterogeneous across subspecialties. Conclusions: Delphi-based studies are increasingly shaping clinical practice in otolaryngology, but persistent methodological and reporting limitations undermine their reliability. Wider adoption of standardized frameworks is essential to improve transparency, reproducibility, and clinical impact, ensuring that consensus statements support both evidence-informed practice and personalized patient care.

Delphi Consensus in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of Reliability and Reporting Completeness / Urbanelli, Anastasia; Pugliese, Giorgia; Bolis, Elisa; Coccapani, Matilde; Gemma Corti, Martina; D'Angelo, Barbara; Lancieri, Anna; Maggi, Laura; Maniaci, Antonino; Lechien, Jerome R.; Maria Saibene, Alberto. - In: JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE. - ISSN 2075-4426. - 15:12(2025). [10.3390/jpm15120567]

Delphi Consensus in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of Reliability and Reporting Completeness

Anastasia Urbanelli;
2025

Abstract

: Background: The Delphi method is increasingly used in otolaryngology to develop consensus in subjects lacking robust evidence. In these contexts, consensus documents play a dual role: they provide structured expert guidance while determining shared principles adaptable to the individual patient. Nevertheless, the methodological rigor and reporting consistency of Delphi studies remain variable, raising concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and potential bias. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for Delphi-based consensus studies in otolaryngology. Fully published studies in English, Italian, German, French, or Spanish were included. Each article was assessed using established methodological frameworks for consensus development, bias domains described in the methodological literature, and the DELPHISTAR reporting checklist. Reliability and completeness scores were calculated to enable comparisons. Results: Out of 3168 unique records, 86 studies were included. Most defined their purpose and consensus criteria, but transparency regarding panel selection, anonymity, feedback, and criteria for stopping the consensus process was often missing. Based on methodological bias domains, only 9 studies (10.5%) reached a "good" reliability score, while the majority were rated as "fair." According to DELPHISTAR, just 3 studies (3.5%) showed good levels of completeness. Reporting completeness and risk of bias proved heterogeneous across subspecialties. Conclusions: Delphi-based studies are increasingly shaping clinical practice in otolaryngology, but persistent methodological and reporting limitations undermine their reliability. Wider adoption of standardized frameworks is essential to improve transparency, reproducibility, and clinical impact, ensuring that consensus statements support both evidence-informed practice and personalized patient care.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

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/11583/3006159
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo