Advertisement

A Delphi survey and international e-survey evaluating the Doha agreement meeting classification system in groin pain: Where are we 5 years later?

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To evaluate the adoption of and opinions on the Doha agreement meeting classification in groin pain in athletes.

      Design

      Delphi survey and e-survey.

      Methods

      A 2-round Delphi survey among the Doha agreement meeting expert group, and a separate international e-survey among clinicians who regularly assess athletes with groin pain. Clinical cases were presented, and participants provided their preferred terms for the diagnoses. All participants reported if they had adopted the Doha agreement meeting classification system in their practice. The Doha agreement meeting experts also shared opinions on amendments to the classification system, and reported their level of agreement with suggested statements.

      Results

      In the Delphi survey, the Doha agreement meeting experts (n = 21) reported 8–11 different terms for their primary diagnosis of each presented case. The Doha agreement meeting terminology was used by 50–67% of these experts. In the international e-survey (n = 51), 12–15 different diagnostic terms were reported in each clinical case, and 43–55% of clinicians used the Doha agreement meeting terminology. Adoption of the Doha agreement classification system in practice was reported by 73–82% of the Doha agreement meeting experts and 57–69% of the clinicians in the international e-survey. The experts suggested 49 statements regarding amendments to the classification system. Seven of these reached >75% agreement or disagreement.

      Conclusions

      Five years after publication, the majority of the Doha agreement expert group and independent international clinicians report adopting the Doha agreement meeting classification system. There is still considerable heterogeneity in diagnostic terminology when clinical cases are presented, and disagreement on statements related to amendments of the current classification system.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Naaktgeboren C.A.
        • Bertens L.C.M.
        • van Smeden M.
        • et al.
        Value of composite reference standards in diagnostic research.
        BMJ. 2013; 347: f5605
        • Weir A.
        • Brukner P.
        • Delahunt E.
        • et al.
        Doha agreement meeting on terminology and definitions in groin pain in athletes.
        Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 768-774
        • Serner A.
        • van Eijck C.H.
        • Beumer B.R.
        • et al.
        Study quality on groin injury management remains low: a systematic review on treatment of groin pain in athletes.
        Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 813
        • Weir A.
        • Holmich P.
        • Schache A.G.
        • et al.
        Terminology and definitions on groin pain in athletes: building agreement using a short Delphi method.
        Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 768-774
        • Nickel B.
        • Barratt A.
        • Copp T.
        • et al.
        Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.
        BMJ Open. 2017; 7e014129
        • Clarsen B.
        • Bahr R.
        • Myklebust G.
        • et al.
        Improved reporting of overuse injuries and health problems in sport: an update of the Oslo Sport Trauma Research Center questionnaires.
        Br J Sports Med. 2020; 54: 390-396
        • Mountjoy M.
        • Sundgot-Borgen J.K.
        • Burke L.M.
        • et al.
        IOC consensus statement on relative energy deficiency in sport (RED-S): 2018 update.
        Br J Sports Med. 2018; 52: 687-697
        • Griffin D.R.
        • Dickenson E.J.
        • O’Donnell J.
        • et al.
        The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement.
        Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50: 1169-1176
        • Reiman M.P.
        • Agricola R.
        • Kemp J.L.
        • et al.
        Consensus recommendations on the classification, definition and diagnostic criteria of hip-related pain in young and middle-aged active adults from the International Hip-related Pain Research Network, Zurich 2018.
        Br J Sports Med. 2020; 54: 631-641
        • Diamond I.R.
        • Grant R.C.
        • Feldman B.M.
        • et al.
        Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 401-409
        • Delahunt E.
        • Bleakley C.M.
        • Bossard D.S.
        • et al.
        Clinical assessment of acute lateral ankle sprain injuries (ROAST): 2019 consensus statement and recommendations of the International Ankle Consortium.
        Br J Sports Med. 2018; 52: 1304-1310
        • Sheen A.J.
        • Stephenson B.M.
        • Lloyd D.M.
        • et al.
        ‘Treatment of the Sportsman’s groin’: British Hernia Society’s 2014 position statement based on the Manchester Consensus Conference.
        Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48: 1079-1087
        • Bisciotti G.N.
        • Volpi P.
        • Zini R.
        • et al.
        Groin Pain Syndrome Italian Consensus Conference on terminology, clinical evaluation and imaging assessment in groin pain in athlete.
        BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2016; 2e000142
        • Fan W.
        • Yan Z.
        Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: a systematic review.
        Comput Hum Behav. 2010; 26: 132-139
        • Sim J.
        • Wright C.C.
        The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.
        Phys Ther. 2005; 85: 257-268
        • Croft P.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Deeks J.J.
        • et al.
        The science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about “what is likely to happen” should shape clinical practice.
        BMC Med. 2015; 30: 20
        • Serner A.
        • Weir A.
        • Tol J.L.
        • et al.
        Associations between initial clinical examination and imaging findings and return-to-sport in male athletes with acute adductor injuries: a prospective cohort study.
        Am J Sports Med. 2020; 48: 1151-1159
        • Blaxter M.
        Diagnosis as category and process: the case of alcoholism.
        Soc Sci Med. 1978; 12: 9-17
        • Morris Z.S.
        • Wooding S.
        • Grant J.
        The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research.
        J R Soc Med. 2011; 104: 510-520