3 years ago

Documento de expertos sobre el manejo de la acromegalia

Ignacio Bernabeu, Rosa Cámara, Mónica Marazuela, Manel Puig Domingo

Publication date: October 2018

Source: Endocrinología, Diabetes y Nutrición, Volume 65, Issue 8

Author(s): Ignacio Bernabeu, Rosa Cámara, Mónica Marazuela, Manel Puig Domingo


Buscar consenso sobre cuestiones que pueden generar dudas en el manejo de la acromegalia en España.


Grupos nominales y Delphi. Se seleccionaron 4 expertos que definieron cuestiones relevantes en el manejo de la acromegalia sobre las que se formularon distintas aseveraciones y recomendaciones. Posteriormente, se eligió un grupo de 30 expertos adicionales con el que se determinó el grado de acuerdo con las mismas en 2 rondas Delphi. Se establecieron las siguientes categorías de respuesta: 1) totalmente en desacuerdo; 2) básicamente en desacuerdo; 3) básicamente de acuerdo; y 4) totalmente de acuerdo. Se definió acuerdo si, en la segunda ronda Delphi ≥ 70% de las respuestas estaban en las categorías 1 y 2 (consenso con el desacuerdo) o 3 y 4 (consenso con el acuerdo).


Se generaron aseveraciones y recomendaciones sobre diversos aspectos de la práctica clínica incluyendo: 1) instrumentos de utilidad en la individualización del tratamiento (marcadores predictivos de respuesta, técnicas de imagen, etc.); 2) perfiles clínicos y comorbilidades en la individualización del tratamiento; 3) papel del paciente en la toma de decisiones terapéuticas; y 4) acceso al tratamiento (accesibilidad y equidad). La primera ronda Delphi incluyó 35 aseveraciones, en 6 se alcanzó consenso, 2 fueron eliminadas y 2 reformuladas. En la segunda se incluyeron 27 y se alcanzó consenso en 24 (22 en el acuerdo, 2 en el desacuerdo) y 3 se eliminaron.


Este documento pretende resolver algunos interrogantes clínicos habituales y facilitar la toma de decisiones en el manejo de la acromegalia.


To seek a consensus on issues that may generate doubts in management of acromegaly in Spain.


Nominal groups and Delphi. Four experts defined relevant issues in management of acromegaly and generated different assertions and recommendations. Subsequently, a group of 30 additional experts was selected to test agreement with the assertions through two Delphi rounds. The following response categories were established: 1) Totally disagree; 2) Basically disagree; 3) Basically agree; 4) Totally agree. Agreement was defined as ≥ 70% of answers in categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the disagreement) or 3 and 4 (consensus with the agreement) in the second Delphi round.


Assertions covers various aspects of clinical practice, including: 1) Useful instruments in individualization of treatment (response predictive markers, imaging techniques, etc.); 2) Clinical profiles and relevant comorbidities in treatment individualization; 3) Role of patient in treatment decision-making; 4) Access to treatments (accessibility and equity). The first Delphi round included 35 assertions. Consensus was reached on six of these assertions, two were eliminated, and two were reformulated. Of the 27 assertions included in the second round, consensus was reached on 24 (22 in the agreement, two in the disagreement) and three were eliminated.


This document is intended to solve some common clinical questions and to facilitate decision making in the management of patients with acromegaly.

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.