ObjectiveDelphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice.Methodology and Main FindingThree electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility.ConclusionThe use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.

Denninger MH, de Prost D, for the PPH Study Group. The decrease of fibrinogen is an early predictor of the severity of postpartum hemorrhage. 2007; 5: 266-73. Summary. Background: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a major source of maternal morbidity. Objectives: This study's objective was to determine whether changes in hemostasis markers during the course of PPH are predictive of its severity. Patients and methods: We enrolled 128 women with PPH requiring uterotonic prostaglandin E2 (sulprostone) infusion. Two groups were defined (severe and non-severe PPH) according to the outcome during the first 24 hours. According to our criteria, 50 of the 128 women had severe PPH. Serial coagulation tests were performed at enrollment (H0), and 1, 2, 4 and 24 hours thereafter. Results: At H0, and through H4, women with severe PPH had significantly lower fibrinogen, factor V, antithrombin activity, protein C antigen, prolonged prothrombin time, and higher D-dimer and TAT complexes than women with non-severe PPH. In multivariate analysis, from H0 to H4, fibrinogen was the only marker associated with the occurence of severe PPH. At H0, the risk for severe PPH was 2.63-fold higher for each 1 gL )1 decrease of fibrinogen. The negative predictive value of a fibrinogen concentration >4 gL )1 was 79% and the positive predictive value of a concentration £2 gL )1 was 100%. Conclusion: These findings indicate that a simple fibrinogen measurement can anticipate the risk of severe bleeding in PPH. J Thromb Haemost