Recommendations for optimal interdisciplinary management and healthcare settings for patients with rare neurological diseases.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the German Academy for Rare Neurological Diseases (Deutsche Akademie für Seltene Neurologische Erkrankungen; DASNE) was founded to pave the way for an optimized personalized management of patients with rare neurological diseases (RND) in all age groups. Since then a dynamic national network for rare neurological disorders has been established comprising renowned experts in neurology, pediatric neurology, (neuro-) genetics and neuroradiology. DASNE has successfully implemented case presentations and multidisciplinary discussions both at yearly symposia and monthly virtual case conferences, as well as further educational activities covering a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary expertise associated with RND. Here, we present recommendation statements for optimized personalized management of patients with RND, which have been developed and reviewed in a structured Delphi process by a group of experts. METHODS: An interdisciplinary group of 37 RND experts comprising DASNE experts, patient representatives, as well as healthcare professionals and managers was involved in the Delphi process. First, an online collection was performed of topics considered relevant for optimal patient care by the expert group. Second, a two-step Delphi process was carried out to rank the importance of the selected topics. Small interdisciplinary working groups then drafted recommendations. In two consensus meetings and one online review round these recommendations were finally consented. RESULTS: 38 statements were consented and grouped into 11 topics: health care structure, core neurological expertise and core mission, interdisciplinary team composition, diagnostics, continuous care and therapy development, case conferences, exchange / cooperation between Centers for Rare Diseases and other healthcare partners, patient advocacy group, databases, translation and health policy. CONCLUSIONS: This German interdisciplinary Delphi expert panel developed consented recommendations for optimal care of patients with RND in a structured Delphi process. These represent a basis for further developments and adjustments in the health care system to improve care for patients with RND and their families.

Consensus on the definition and assessment of external validity of randomized controlled trials: A Delphi study.

External validity is an important parameter that needs to be considered for decision making in health research, but no widely accepted measurement tool for the assessment of external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exists. One of the most limiting factors for creating such a tool is probably the substantial heterogeneity and lack of consensus in this field. The objective of this study was to reach consensus on a definition of external validity and on criteria to assess the external validity of RCTs included in systematic reviews. A three-round online Delphi study was conducted. The development of the Delphi survey was based on findings from a previous systematic review. Potential panelists were identified through a comprehensive web search. Consensus was reached when at least 67% of the panelists agreed to a proposal. Eighty-four panelists from different countries and various disciplines participated in at least one round of this study. Consensus was reached on the definition of external validity ("External validity is the extent to which results of trials provide an acceptable basis for generalization to other circumstances such as variations in populations, settings, interventions, outcomes, or other relevant contextual factors"), and on 14 criteria to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. The results of this Delphi study provide a consensus-based reference standard for future tool development. Future research should focus on adapting, pilot testing, and validating these criteria to develop measurement tools for the assessment of external validity.

Minimal important change and responsiveness of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: The MIDAS is the most used questionnaire to evaluate migraine-related disability, but its utility to assess treatment response remains unclear. Our aim was to estimate the MIDAS' minimal important change (MIC) value and its responsiveness. METHODS: A total of 103 patients were enrolled in a non-pharmacological, preference-based clinical trial. MIDAS and global rating of self-perceived change (GRoC) scores were collected at baseline, after 5 weeks of treatment, 4-weeks and 3-months follow-up after treatment. Anchor-based approaches were used to establish MIC values and responsiveness. FINDINGS: In all 3 timepoint comparisons, MIDAS presented a MIC of 4.5 points. A moderate positive correlation was identified between the MIDAS change and GRoC scores. The area under the curve ranged from 0.63 to 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that MIDAS has a limited responsiveness to change. A change of 4.5 points or more represents a clinically important change for patients with high frequent migraine and chronic migraine receiving non-pharmacological treatment.