ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Guidance on Transparent Sponsorship Reporting in Industry Associated Delphi Studies (TRIAD): Recommendations Based on a Systematic Review.
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Delphi technique is a structured method for achieving expert consensus and is widely used in health research, including studies involving pharmaceutical sponsors. Although guidance exists for the conduct and reporting of Delphi studies, methodological and reporting practices remain variable. This systematic review aimed to characterise the design, reporting, and transparency of Delphi studies with pharmaceutical sponsor involvement.
methodsA systematic literature review identified Delphi studies published between 2020 and 2024 that reported pharmaceutical sponsor involvement. Studies were screened and data extracted using a standardised framework informed by published Delphi guidance. Extracted variables included study aims, panel composition and selection criteria, Delphi process design, consensus definitions, reporting practices, and descriptions of sponsor involvement. Methodological quality was assessed using a four-item framework focused on core Delphi design elements.
resultsEighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in study design and reporting. While most studies prespecified a consensus definition, the rationale for consensus thresholds and approaches to handling disagreement were inconsistently reported. Details regarding panel recruitment, feedback between rounds, and statement modification were variably described. Reporting of sponsor involvement also differed across studies. Overall methodological quality varied, with many studies meeting only a subset of core quality criteria.
conclusionDelphi studies involving pharmaceutical sponsors show substantial variation in methodological approaches, alongside incomplete reporting of key design elements and sponsor involvement. More consistent reporting of key design elements and sponsor involvement may improve transparency and interpretability. The proposed TRIAD framework offers a structured approach to support transparent reporting in future Delphi studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42472422What 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.