Delphi Consensus in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of Reliability and Reporting Completeness

<b>Background:</b> The Delphi method is increasingly used in otolaryngology to develop consensus in subjects lacking robust evidence. In these contexts, consensus documents play a dual role: they provide structured expert guidance while determining shared principles adaptable to the individual patient. Nevertheless, the methodological rigor and reporting consistency of Delphi studies remain variable, raising concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and potential bias. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for Delphi-based consensus studies in otolaryngology. Fully published studies in English, Italian, German, French, or Spanish were included. Each article was assessed using established methodological frameworks for consensus development, bias domains described in the methodological literature, and the DELPHISTAR reporting checklist. Reliability and completeness scores were calculated to enable comparisons. <b>Results:</b> Out of 3168 unique records, 86 studies were included. Most defined their purpose and consensus criteria, but transparency regarding panel selection, anonymity, feedback, and criteria for stopping the consensus process was often missing. Based on methodological bias domains, only 9 studies (10.5%) reached a "good" reliability score, while the majority were rated as "fair." According to DELPHISTAR, just 3 studies (3.5%) showed good levels of completeness. Reporting completeness and risk of bias proved heterogeneous across subspecialties. <b>Conclusions:</b> Delphi-based studies are increasingly shaping clinical practice in otolaryngology, but persistent methodological and reporting limitations undermine their reliability. Wider adoption of standardized frameworks is essential to improve transparency, reproducibility, and clinical impact, ensuring that consensus statements support both evidence-informed practice and personalized patient care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Published
2025-11-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm15120567
Primary Topic
Delphi Technique in Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Delphi Consensus in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of Reliability and Reporting Completeness

Anastasia Urbanelli, Alberto Maria Saibene, Antonino Maniaci, Loredana Maggi et al.
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Delphi Technique in Research
article

Delphi Consensus in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of Reliability and Reporting Completeness

Anastasia Urbanelli, Alberto Maria Saibene, Antonino Maniaci, Loredana Maggi, Jerome Rene Lechien, Giorgia Pugliese, Mario Corti, Matilde Coccapani, Barbara D’Angelo, Anna Lancieri, Elisa Bolis
article en

Abstract

<b>Background:</b> The Delphi method is increasingly used in otolaryngology to develop consensus in subjects lacking robust evidence. In these contexts, consensus documents play a dual role: they provide structured expert guidance while determining shared principles adaptable to the individual patient. Nevertheless, the methodological rigor and reporting consistency of Delphi studies remain variable, raising concerns about transparency, reproducibility, and potential bias. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for Delphi-based consensus studies in otolaryngology. Fully published studies in English, Italian, German, French, or Spanish were included. Each article was assessed using established methodological frameworks for consensus development, bias domains described in the methodological literature, and the DELPHISTAR reporting checklist. Reliability and completeness scores were calculated to enable comparisons. <b>Results:</b> Out of 3168 unique records, 86 studies were included. Most defined their purpose and consensus criteria, but transparency regarding panel selection, anonymity, feedback, and criteria for stopping the consensus process was often missing. Based on methodological bias domains, only 9 studies (10.5%) reached a "good" reliability score, while the majority were rated as "fair." According to DELPHISTAR, just 3 studies (3.5%) showed good levels of completeness. Reporting completeness and risk of bias proved heterogeneous across subspecialties. <b>Conclusions:</b> Delphi-based studies are increasingly shaping clinical practice in otolaryngology, but persistent methodological and reporting limitations undermine their reliability. Wider adoption of standardized frameworks is essential to improve transparency, reproducibility, and clinical impact, ensuring that consensus statements support both evidence-informed practice and personalized patient care.

Journal of Personalized MedicineVol. 15(12)
AOL (United States) (US), University of Mons (BE), Università degli Studi di Enna Kore (IT), Ospedale San Paolo (IT), University of Turin (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 54%
Delphi Technique in Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.