Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Modified AUGIS Delphi Process to Establish Future Research Priorities in Benign Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of our study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine the research priorities amongst benign upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgeons in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Delphi methodology may be utilised to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of experts. Members of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland were invited to submit individual research questions via an online survey (phase I). Two rounds of prioritisation by multidisciplinary expert healthcare professionals (phase II and III) were completed to determine a final list of high-priority research questions.

Results

Four hundred and twenty-seven questions were submitted in phase I, and 51 with a benign UGI focus were taken forward for prioritisation in phase II. Twenty-eight questions were ranked in phase III. A final list of 11 high-priority questions had an emphasis on acute pancreatitis, Barrett’s oesophagus and benign biliary disease.

Conclusion

A modified Delphi process has produced a list of 11 high-priority research questions in benign UGI surgery. Future studies and awards from funding bodies should reflect this consensus list of prioritised questions in the interest of improving patient care and encouraging collaborative research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tiernan J, Cook A, Geh I, George B, Magill L, Northover J et al (2014) Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the association of coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Colorectal Dis 16(12):965–970

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eubank BH, Mohtadi NG, Lafave MR, Wiley JP, Bois AJ, Boorman RS et al (2016) Using the modified Delphi method to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with rotator cuff pathology. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Henderson J, Reid A, Jain A (2018) Use of a modified BAPRAS Delphi process for research priority setting in Plastic Surgery in the UK. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71(12):1679–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Knight SR, Pathak S, Christie A, Jones L, Rees J, Davies H et al (2019) Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities in HPB surgery across the United Kingdom. HPB, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson MSJ, Knight S, Vaughan-Shaw P, Blakemore AI, O'Kane M, Boyle C et al (2019) A modified AUGIS Delphi process to establish research priorities in bariatric and metabolic surgery. Clin Obes. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM et al (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383(9912):156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stewart RJ, Caird J, Oliver K, Oliver S (2011) Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expect 14(4):439–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Burt CG, Cima RR, Koltun WA, Littlejohn CE, Ricciardi R, Temple LK et al (2009) Developing a research agenda for the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons: results of a delphi approach. Dis Colon Rectum 52(5):898–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldacre MJ, Roberts SE (2004) Hospital admission for acute pancreatitis in an English population, 1963–98: database study of incidence and mortality. BMJ 328(7454):1466–1469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garg SK, Campbell JP, Anugwom C, Wadhwa V, Singh R, Gupta N et al (2018) Incidence and predictors of readmissions in acute pancreatitis: a nationwide analysis. Pancreas 47(1):46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garg SK, Sarvepalli S, Campbell JP, Obaitan I, Singh D, Bazerbachi F et al (2019) Incidence, admission rates, and predictors, and economic burden of adult emergency visits for acute pancreatitis: data from the national emergency department sample, 2006 to 2012. J Clin Gastroenterol 53(3):220–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Raty S, Pulkkinen J, Nordback I, Sand J, Victorzon M, Gronroos J et al (2015) Can laparoscopic cholecystectomy prevent recurrent idiopathic acute pancreatitis? A prospective randomized multicenter trial. Ann Surg 262(5):736–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mentula P (2017) Effect of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after idiopathic acute pancreatitis may be overestimated. Ann Surg 266(6):e77–e78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Said M, Rongen APM (2017) Can laparoscopic cholecystectomy prevent recurrent idiopathic acute pancreatitis? Ann Surg 266(6):e94–e95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jankowski JAZ, de Caestecker J, Love SB, Reilly G, Watson P, Sanders S et al (2018) Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet 392(10145):400–408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Old O, Moayyedi P, Love S, Roberts C, Hapeshi J, Foy C et al (2015) Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance versus endoscopy at need Study (BOSS): protocol and analysis plan for a multicentre randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen 22(3):158–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. A randomised controlled trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of expectant management versus pre-operative imaging with magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreaticogram (MRCP) in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones: The Sunflower Study https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10378861. Accessed 1 Sept 2019

  18. Endoscopic versus laparoscopic myotomy for treatment of idiopathic achalasia: a randomized, controlled trial (POEM) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01601678. Accessed 1 Sept 2019

  19. Pauwels A, Boecxstaens V, Andrews CN, Attwood SE, Berrisford R, Bisschops R et al (2019) How to select patients for antireflux surgery? The ICARUS guidelines (international consensus regarding preoperative examinations and clinical characteristics assessment to select adult patients for antireflux surgery). Gut 68:1928–1941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wiggins T, Markar SR, MacKenzie H et al (2019) Optimum timing of emergency cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in England: population-based cohort study. Surg Endosc 33:2495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6537-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zafar SN, Obirieze A, Adesibikan B, Cornwell EE 3rd, Fullum TM, Tran DD (2015) Optimal time for early laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. JAMA Surg 150(2):129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cao AM, Eslick GD, Cox MR (2016) Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to delayed acute cholecystitis: a meta-analysis of case-control studies. Surg Endosc 30(3):1172–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sutton AJ, Vohra RS, Hollyman M, Marriott PJ, Buja A, Alderson D et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness of emergency versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder pathology. Br J Surg 104(1):98–107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The benign UGI steering committee wish to formally thank AUGIS and BOMSS for their support with this study. In particular, the administrative support provided by Nichola Bartlett was fundamental throughout the Delphi process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Larbert, FK5 4WR, UK

    Michael S. J. Wilson

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, E4 2XU, UK

    P. Vaughan-Shaw

  3. Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    C. Boyle

  4. Department of Radiology, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, E16 4SA, UK

    G. L. Yong

  5. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, D2 1SY, UK

    S. Oglesby

  6. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, E16 4SA, UK

    R. Skipworth & P. Lamb

  7. Department of Upper GI Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK

    E. A. T. Griffiths

  8. Department of Health Services Research, Durham University, Durham, D1 3RW, UK

    S. E. A. Attwood

Authors
  1. Michael S. J. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Vaughan-Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. L. Yong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Oglesby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Skipworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. A. T. Griffiths
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. S. E. A. Attwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

AUGIS

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. J. Wilson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1. Questions from phase III that were not included in the final list of research priorities

Appendix 1. Questions from phase III that were not included in the final list of research priorities

Excluded questions

What is the role of definitive ERCP in the management of symptomatic gallstones and/or pancreatitis?

Is ERCP, sphincterotomy and duct clearance superior to surgical bile duct exploration for the management of common bile duct stones?

What is the pathophysiology of progression from inflammation to pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis?

What quality indicators should be used in the care of patients with acute and chronic pancreatitis?

Which molecular factors contribute to the progression of acute pancreatitis to become recurrent and/or chronic?

What new and/or repurposed drug can and should be developed and tested in the treatment of acute pancreatitis?

Is there a role for the evaluation of POEM for the treatment of achalasia in the UK?

What is the optimal time to perform an emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis?

Is emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy cost-effective?

What is the optimal management of asymptomatic choledocholithiasis?

Is there a volume–outcome relationship for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration?

What is the optimal timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy after acute severe gallstone pancreatitis?

Which anti-reflux procedure produces the best clinical outcomes, laparoscopic fundoplication or Linx?

What is the best way to select patients for the surgical or endoscopic management of reflux disease (Linx/Stretta/Fundoplication)?

Is surgery or interventional radiology the preferred treatment for the failed endoscopic management of upper GI bleeding?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, M.S.J., Vaughan-Shaw, P., Boyle, C. et al. A Modified AUGIS Delphi Process to Establish Future Research Priorities in Benign Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery. World J Surg 44, 1216–1222 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05308-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05308-0

Search

Navigation