Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

85
Body:Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to...
85
Study Design in Statistics01:15

Study Design in Statistics

9.7K
A study design is a set of techniques that allow a researcher to collect and analyze data from different variables defined for a specific research problem. Statistics is commonly for effective study design and more robust experiments,
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
9.7K
Study Designs in Epidemiology01:20

Study Designs in Epidemiology

622
Epidemiological study designs are fundamental tools for investigating the distribution, determinants, and control of health conditions in populations. They help researchers understand the relationships between exposures and outcomes, and they broadly fall into two categories: "observational" and "experimental" studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
622
Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

8.6K
The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
8.6K
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

403
Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
403
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs01:15

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

72
Body:Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...
72

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Racial Differences in Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Incident Hypertension: A Mediation Analysis.

Journal of the American Heart Association·2026
Same author

Large-scale proteomics in early pregnancy and timing of onset of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026
Same author

Endothelial Susceptibility-Related Genetic Variants and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy-Brief Report.

Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology·2026
Same author

Harmonizing Maternal and Infant Biospecimen Collection and Processing for Research.

Biopreservation and biobanking·2026
Same author

Fetal brain volumes and brain gyrification index associated with opioid exposure.

Brain communications·2026
Same author

Association between a Periconception Healthy Plant-Based Diet and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes.

The Journal of nutrition·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 17, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.3K

Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial.

Fiona A Quirke1,2,3, Patricia Healy4,5, Elaine Ní Bhraonáin6

  • 1Health Research Board Neonatal Encephalopathy PhD Training Network (NEPTuNE), Galway, Ireland. f.quirke1@nuigalway.ie.

Trials
|February 16, 2021
PubMed
Summary

This study compares traditional multi-round Delphi surveys with real-time Delphi surveys for developing core outcome sets. The findings will guide the choice of Delphi method for consensus building in health research.

Keywords:
Core outcome setsMethodologyMulti-Round DelphiRandomised trialReal-Time Delphi

More Related Videos

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
06:05

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

1.5K
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
14:43

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting

Published on: January 12, 2018

12.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 17, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
05:37

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

2.3K
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
06:05

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time

Published on: February 19, 2021

1.5K
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
14:43

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting

Published on: January 12, 2018

12.3K

Area of Science:

  • Consensus methodology
  • Health outcomes research
  • Clinical trial methodology

Background:

  • The Delphi method is a consensus-building technique using iterative surveys with participant feedback.
  • It is frequently used to develop core outcome sets (COS) for health conditions.
  • Participant retention is a challenge in traditional multi-round COS development.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the effectiveness of a three-round Delphi approach versus a Real-Time Delphi approach for prioritizing outcomes.
  • To evaluate participant retention and other parameters in both Delphi methods within the COHESION study.

Main Methods:

  • A randomized trial comparing a three-round Delphi with a Real-Time Delphi method.
  • 180 stakeholders (parents, healthcare providers, researchers) will be randomized.
  • Participants will rate outcome importance, with comparisons of prioritized outcomes and other parameters.

Main Results:

  • Prioritized outcomes will be compared between the Multi-Round and Real-Time Delphi groups.
  • Feedback, initial condition, and iteration effects will be analyzed.
  • The study aims to identify differences in consensus achievement and participant experience.

Conclusions:

  • This trial will provide evidence to inform the selection of Delphi survey methods for developing core outcome sets.
  • Findings will guide decisions on using Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi approaches in health research.