Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation was convened for this purpose. A steering committee selected the participants and defined the questions to be addressed. A group of literature reviewers identified 597 studies to be included in summaries for guidelines production. Expert groups formulated the first draft of recommendations. Two rounds of discussion and voting occurred online, using the Delphi method (agreement rate ≥85%). After each round, critical responses of experts were reviewed, and recommendations were amended accordingly. Recommendations were finalized after live discussions. Each session was preceded by expert presentations and a summary of results of systematic literature review. Up to three voting rounds were allowed for each recommendation. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, deliberations on issues regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the management of diabetes were conducted by an independent jury. Recommendations on technical issues were determined by experts and validated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology. Each recommendation received a GRADE rating (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations).
First world consensus conference on pancreas transplantation: Part I—Methods and results of literature search / Boggi, U.; Vistoli, F.; Marchetti, P.; Kandaswamy, R.; Berney, T.; Andres, A.; Arbogast, H. P.; Badet, L.; Baronti, W.; Bartlett, S. T.; Benedetti, E.; Branchereau, J.; Burke, G. W. 3.; Buron, F.; Caldara, R.; Cardillo, M.; Casanova, D.; Cipriani, F.; Cooper, M.; Cupisti, A.; de Koning, E. J. P.; Davide, J.; Drachenberg, C.; Ettorre, G. M.; Fernandez Cruz, L.; Fridell, J. A.; Friend, P. J.; Furian, L.; Gaber, O. A.; Gruessner, A. C.; Gruessner, R. W. G.; Gunton, J. E.; Han, D. -J.; Iacopi, S.; Kauffmann, E. F.; Kaufman, D.; Kenmochi, T.; Khambalia, H. A.; Lai, Q.; Langer, R. M.; Maffi, P.; Marselli, L.; Menichetti, F.; Miccoli, M.; Mittal, S.; Morelon, E.; Napoli, N.; Neri, F.; Oberholzer, J.; Odorico, J. S.; Ollinger, R.; Oniscu, G.; Orlando, G.; Ortenzi, M.; Perosa, M.; Perrone, V. G.; Redfield, R. R.; Ricci, C.; Rigotti, P.; Robertson, R. P.; Ross, L. F.; Rossi, M.; Saudek, F.; Scalea, J. R.; Schenker, P.; Secchi, A.; Socci, C.; Sousa Silva, D.; Squifflet, J. P.; Stock, P. G.; Stratta, R. J.; Terrenzio, C.; Uva, P.; Watson, C. C. E.; White, S. A.. - In: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION. - ISSN 1600-6135. - 21:3(2021), pp. 1-16. [10.1111/ajt.16738]
First world consensus conference on pancreas transplantation: Part I—Methods and results of literature search
Cipriani F.;Maffi P.;Rigotti P.;Secchi A.;
2021-01-01
Abstract
Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the practice of pancreas transplantation are yet to be established. The First World Consensus Conference on Pancreas Transplantation was convened for this purpose. A steering committee selected the participants and defined the questions to be addressed. A group of literature reviewers identified 597 studies to be included in summaries for guidelines production. Expert groups formulated the first draft of recommendations. Two rounds of discussion and voting occurred online, using the Delphi method (agreement rate ≥85%). After each round, critical responses of experts were reviewed, and recommendations were amended accordingly. Recommendations were finalized after live discussions. Each session was preceded by expert presentations and a summary of results of systematic literature review. Up to three voting rounds were allowed for each recommendation. To avoid potential conflicts of interest, deliberations on issues regarding the impact of pancreas transplantation on the management of diabetes were conducted by an independent jury. Recommendations on technical issues were determined by experts and validated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology. Each recommendation received a GRADE rating (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations).| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1-s2.0-S1600613522088797-main.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
485.55 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
485.55 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
