Figure 2 Recruitment of experts to the Delphi study

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Tyrosine kinase signalling (review) TGF signalling Notch signalling.

Advertisements

Risk Analysis of Autonomous Cars in Mixed Traffic Streams

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 1 Flow of participants through the study.

Figure 6 Selected examples of TERS applications in material systems

Figure 1 Number of somatic mutation rates across The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) projects Figure 1 | Number of somatic mutation rates across The Cancer.

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 4 Types of urinary diversion

Figure 1 Male infertility and assisted reproduction globally

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 1 Cellular processes involved in cancer development

Figure 3 Birt–Hogg–Dubé (BHD) renal tumour histology

Figure 3 Semantic model of the active surveillance (AS) timeline

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 2 Representative images from a right radical

Figure 2 Bad-metal behaviour and electron correlations

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 1 Key elements of the proposed modified Delphi study

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 6 Common signalling mechanisms, pathways,

Figure 1 Acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 2 Schema for the phase II Randomized Observation versus

Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. doi: /nrclinonc

Figure 1 The development process of the Asian

Figure 1 Differences in bladder cancer between genders

Figure 13 Proposed management of bladder cancer with variant histology

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 1 Anatomy of the venous drainage from the testes

Figure 3 Treatment algorithm for adult infertile men with varicoceles

Figure 3 Algorithm for the determination of the clinical

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 2 Temporal summation

Figure 6 Image sequence demonstrating coronal cuts on MRI

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 2 Global cost of HF per capita in 2012

in the UK (1961–2012), France (1961–2014) and Italy (1961–2010)

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 3 Differences in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) between genders

Figure 3 Template for standard pelvic lymphadenectomy

Figure 1 Comparison of LDR‑BT, HDR‑BT, and EBRT

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

the SNP profile using 26 prostate cancer GWAS risk SNPs

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 6 The hexosamine biosynthetic pathway (HBP)

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 1 A hierarchy of steps need to be

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Figure 4 The grey zone between active

Figure 2 Recommended simulation training pathway

Figure 4 4D printing schemes and time-evolving structure geometries

Figure 1 Overview of the imaging biomarker roadmap

Ratings of core domains stratified by stakeholder group in the second Delphi round. Ratings of core domains stratified by stakeholder group in the second.

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Flow chart of the NELSON lung cancer screening study.

Figure 4 Algorithm for when to determine PTEN

Nat. Rev. Urol. doi: /nrurol

Andrea Parrish, Bill Sadera, and Scot McNary Towson University

Presentation transcript:

Figure 2 Recruitment of experts to the Delphi study Figure 2 | Recruitment of experts to the Delphi study. In total, 17 experts from the 15 participating institutions were invited to take part in the first-round survey, of which 14 completed the survey and three did not respond to the invitation. These 14 experts were invited to complete the second-round survey, of which 10 responded and four did not respond to the invitation. In total, seven of the 10 experts who responded to the second survey were present at the consensus meeting (round 3). In addition, two experts who participated in the first-round survey but not in the second-round survey were present at the consensus meeting and participated in the semantics discussion. The 10 experts who participated in the second survey and were also present at the consensus meeting, and the experts who participated only in the first round survey and were present at the consensus meeting were invited for the third and final survey (round 4). In total, 12 experts were invited, all of whom participated making up the final expert panel. GAP3; Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. Bruinsma, S. M. et al. (2017) Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer — results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure Nat. Rev. Urol. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2017.26