2018
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-099007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing consensus on clinical assessment of acute lateral ankle sprain injuries: protocol for an international and multidisciplinary modified Delphi process

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A previous consensus statement of the International Ankle Consortium2 and its supporting evidence document1 were used as the starting point for this modified Delphi study. The protocol for the present modified Delphi study, which details the study methodology, has been published 18. In summary, our modified Delphi process started with an anonymous online questionnaire (round 1) specifically related to the clinical assessment of acute lateral ankle sprain injuries.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A previous consensus statement of the International Ankle Consortium2 and its supporting evidence document1 were used as the starting point for this modified Delphi study. The protocol for the present modified Delphi study, which details the study methodology, has been published 18. In summary, our modified Delphi process started with an anonymous online questionnaire (round 1) specifically related to the clinical assessment of acute lateral ankle sprain injuries.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An online Delphi round was used to produce accurate outcomes. 24 All experts reviewed and commented on the text online using a 5-point scale 25 : (1) strongly agree ; (2) agree ; (3) no opinion ; (4) disagree ; and (5) strongly disagree . A score of 1 or 2 was determined as “Agreement.” Those recommendation statements that were regarded as “Disagreement” were discussed further in the second round.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and G-E.F. formulated the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) research topics and drafted the recommendation statements. During the first round, the 21 experts from the Chinese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine reviewed and commented on the text online using a 5-point scale: 1. strongly agree; 2. agree; 3. no opinion; 4. disagree; 5. strongly disagree ( 24 ). A score of 1–2 was determined as “Agreement.” In the second round, the recommendation statements that were regarded as “Disagreement” were discussed further.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%