4.5 Article

Multidisciplinary management of patients with coexisting inflammatory bowel disease and spondyloarthritis: A Delphi consensus among Italian experts

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 49, Issue 12, Pages 1298-1305

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.06.004

Keywords

Delphi method; Inflammatory bowel disease; Integrated management; Spondyloarthrit is; Therapy

Funding

  1. MSD Italy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Treatment of patients with coexisting spondyloarthritis (SpA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) often requires multidisciplinary collaboration between gastroenterologists and rheumatologists. Aim: To describe the results of the first Delphi consensus to define shared therapeutic strategies for the best management of patients with coexisting SpA and IBD. Methods: A scientific steering committee of 10 Italian experts in the field of SpA and IBD developed 27 statements on 5 possible clinical scenarios and selected 40 specialists from across Italy, both gastroenterologists and rheumatologists, to vote them using a Delphi method. Each participant expressed a level of agreement on each statement using a 5-point scale (1 = absolutely disagree; 5 = absolutely agree). Total cumulative agreement was defined as the sum of the percentage of responses to items 4 (agree) and 5 (absolutely agree). Total cumulative agreement >70% defined consensus for each statement. Results: After the first round, positive consensus was reached for 22 statements. Statements without consensus were discussed in a plenary session before the second vote. Positive consensus was then reached in all statements, with final total cumulative agreement ranging from 80% to 100%. Conclusion: This is the first Delphi consensus defining specific treatment algorithms for patients with coexisting SpA and IBD. 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available