Wound Repair Regen · 2012
Consensus principles for wound care research obtained using a Delphi process
Serena, T., Bates-Jensen, B., Carter, M.J., Cordrey, R., Driver, V., Fife, C.E., Haser, P.B., Krasner, D., Nusgart, M., Smith, A.P.S., & Snyder, R.J.
Wound Repair and Regeneration, 2012
In brief
On behalf of the Alliance of Wound Care Stakeholders' POWER panel, an 11-member expert panel used a two-round Delphi survey of wound care researchers from 15 organizations to build consensus principles for clinical and comparative effectiveness research in wound healing. The process produced 19 final principles, covering topics such as matching study design and endpoints to a study's purpose, run-in periods where appropriate, explicit definitions of usual care, inclusion of highly vulnerable populations where feasible, reporting of recurrence, and development of wound registries. The panel also proposes minimum reporting criteria for randomized and observational studies and hopes the principles will raise the standard of wound care research.
Co-authored by Dr. Thomas Serena, SerenaGroup's founder, as lead author.
Plain-language summary by SerenaGroup. See the full text for complete methods and results.
Abstract
Too many wound care research studies are poorly designed, badly executed, and missing crucial data. The objective of this study is to create a series of principles for all stakeholders involved in clinical or comparative effectiveness research in wound healing. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus, using a web-based survey for survey participants and face-to-face conferences for expert panel members. Expert panel (11 members) and 115 wound care researchers (respondents) drawn from 15 different organizations. Principles were rated for validity using 5-point Likert scales and comments. A 66% response rate was achieved in the first Delphi round from the 173 invited survey participants. The response rate for the second Delphi round was 46%. The most common wound care researcher profile was age 46–55 years, a wound care clinic setting, and >10 years’ wound care research and clinical experience. Of the initial 17 principles created by the panel, only four principles were not endorsed in Delphi round 1 with another four not requiring revision. Of the 14 principles assessed by respondents in the second Delphi round, only one principle was not endorsed and it was revised; four other principles also needed revision based on the use of specific words or contextual use. Of the 19 final principles, three included detailed numbered lists. With the wide variation in design, conduct, and reporting of wound care research studies, it is hoped that these principles will improve the standard and practice of care in this field.
Related in Clinical Guidelines and Wound Care Practices
