Core Descriptor Sets for Rectal Prolapse Outcomes Research Using a Modified Delphi Consensus

Brooke H. Gurland,Craig H. Olson,Madison S McCarthy,Liliana G. Bordeianou,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/dcr.0000000000003187
2024-01-15
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Abstract:BACKGROUND: There is wide variation for prolapse care. OBJECTIVE: To determine core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse to enhance outcomes research. DESIGN: Descriptors for patients undergoing rectal prolapse surgery were generated through a systematic review and expert opinion. Stakeholders were recruited internationally via list-serve and social media. Experts were encouraged to consider the minimum descriptors that could be considered during clinical care, and descriptors were grouped into core descriptor sets. Consensus was defined as > 70% agreement. SETTING: A three-round Delphi process using a 9-point Likert scale based on expert results was distributed via survey. The final interactive meeting used a polling platform. PARTICIPANTS: The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium interdisciplinary group convened to advance the clinical care of pelvic floor disorders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To achieve expert consensus for core descriptor sets for rectal prolapse using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: A total of 206 providers participated with survey response rates of 82% and 88% respectively. Responders were from North America 56%, Europe 29%, and Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa 15%. Ninety-one percent identified as colorectal surgeons and 80% reported more than 5 years of experience (35% > 15 years). Fifty-seven attendees participated in the final meeting and voted on core descriptor sets. Ninety-three percent agreed that descriptors such as age, body mass index, frailty, nutrition, and American Society of Anesthesiology Score correlated to physiologic status. One hundred percent agreed to include baseline bowel function. 100% reported willingness to complete a synoptic operative report. Follow-up intervals 1,3,5 year after surgery (76%) with a collection of recurrence, and functional outcomes at those time periods reached an agreement. LIMITATIONS: Individual bias, self-identification of experts, and paucity of the knowledge related to rectal prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first steps toward international consensus to unify language and data collection processes for rectal prolapse. See Video Abstract .
gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
What problem does this paper attempt to address?