ArticleFrontiers in allergy2025
Development and validation of a Delphi consensus-based questionnaire for the multidisciplinary management of type 2 inflammation-related diseases.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to validate a 15-item screening questionnaire for the early detection of coexisting type 2 (T2) inflammatory diseases, such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), among others. Methods: The questionnaire, designed through expert consensus by a scientific committee, underwent Delphi methodology for validation. A multidisciplinary panel of 19 clinicians from different specialties reviewed the questionnaire for clinical relevance, while 39 patients from different regions of Spain evaluated its comprehensibility. Results: The clinician panel reached a consensus on the relevance of 13 out of 15 items in the first round and agreed that a single positive response was sufficient to justify referral to the appropriate specialist. Two items were modified and validated in the second round. The patient panel unanimously agreed on the comprehensibility of the questionnaire in the first round. Linguistic variations were also ranked to ensure clarity across regions, further enhancing the validation of the tool. Conclusion: This validated questionnaire offers a practical tool for early detection of T2 inflammatory diseases. Its simplicity and comprehensibility, confirmed by clinicians and patients, make it suitable for use in various healthcare settings, supporting timely specialist referrals and improved patient care. Future studies will evaluate its effectiveness in real-world clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.