Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec;475(12):3044-3055.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5482-7. Epub 2017 Aug 30.

Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology

Affiliations

Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology

Patricia Jacqueline Schneider et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care.

Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.

Methods: A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.

Results: A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?

Conclusions: The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A flow diagram shows the Moving Forward Through Consensus Orthopaedic Oncology Research Program planning initiative.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Metastatic Bone Disease. Available at: http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00093. Accessed May 12, 2017.
    1. Bagi CM. Targeting of therapeutic agents to bone to treat metastatic cancer. Adv Drug Del Rev. 2005;57:995–1010. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2004.12.014. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baker J, Lovell K, Harris N. How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Res. 2006;14:59–70. doi: 10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Coppin C, Kollmannsberger C, Le L, Porzsolt F, Wilt TJ. Targeted therapy for advanced renal cell cancer (RCC): a Cochrane systematic review of published randomised trials. BJU Int. 2011;108:1556–1563. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10629.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Evaniew N, Nuttall J, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M, Ghert M. What are the levels of evidence on which we base decisions for surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;471:2017–2027. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms