Research priorities in pleural disease: study protocol for a joint patient-provider Delphi consensus statement

Our plain-English summary of Research priorities in pleural disease: study protocol for a joint patient-provider Delphi consensus statement, by J.A. Shaw, A. Milne, F. Mei, et al (BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 2026).

The study

• Authors: J.A. Shaw, A. Milne, F. Mei, U. Bodtger, S.P. Walker
• Journal: BMJ Open Respiratory Research
• Published: 2026;13(1)
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

Introduction: There is a wide global variation in research priorities and current clinical practise among pleural medicine practitioners. Research performed today will inform future clinical practice, but the patient's voices are often not heard in setting the research agenda. The International Multicentre Pleural Research Collaborative (IMPACT) European Respiratory Society (ERS) Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC) aims to present a consensus document from both pleural disease experts and patients, which will guide pleural disease research in the immediate future. The objective is to ensure a focus on scientifically valid, clinically meaningful and patient-centred pleural disease research with global relevance.

Methods And Analysis: The core working group will collate a list of previously identified research questions in the key topics in pleural disease: pleural infection, pleural malignancy, pneumothorax, pleural mesothelioma and non-malignant pleural effusions. These questions will be ranked in importance (based on a judgement of scientific merit, significance, innovation, relevance and feasibility) using a Delphi method, by a panel of pleural disease experts. The questions which reach consensus will be subject to a Delphi method survey of patients. The patient-modified list will be discussed in a consensus group meeting involving both experts and patients, who will produce the final prioritised list of research questions.

Ethics And Dissemination: Ethical approval will be waived for the active involvement of patients as either advisors or participants in questionnaires. The results will be reported in the form of a peer-reviewed publication with an open access license, according to the ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guidelines for consensus-based research.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.

In plain English

This article was a study protocol. It described a planned study and reported no results. The authors, writing for the International Multicentre Pleural Research Collaborative (IMPACT), a European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaboration, planned to build an agreed list of priority research questions in pleural disease. They would use a Delphi method, a structured series of surveys. First, a core working group was to gather research recommendations from international guidelines on pleural infection, pleural malignancy, pneumothorax, pleural mesothelioma and non-malignant pleural effusions. Next, at least 20 IMPACT expert members were to score each question on a 9-point scale for scientific merit, significance, innovation, relevance and feasibility, over up to three rounds. A question was to be included if more than 75% of respondents scored it five or above on all criteria. Patients, recruited with the European Lung Foundation, were then to rate the remaining questions for importance and patient focus, with a target of at least 100 responses. Finally, an online meeting of experts and patients was to produce the final ranked list.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Study protocol for a planned Delphi consensus study involving pleural disease experts and patients, in four phases
• Who was studied: Planned participants: an expert panel of at least 20 IMPACT European Respiratory Society Clinical Research Collaboration members (international pleural disease experts), and a patient working group developed with the European Lung Foundation, aiming for at least 100 patient questionnaire responses with a minimum of 25 in each patient group
• The authors' conclusion: No findings yet. The authors stated that the study will produce a set of ranked research questions for pleural medicine agreed through discussion between expert clinicians and patients, and that it will guide future research in the field.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Pleural plaques and thickening.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Pneumothorax, Pleural Mesothelioma, Pleural Effusion.

Related studies

• American College of Chest Physicians consensus statement on the respiratory health effects of asbestos. Results of a Delphi study — D.E. Banks, R. Shi, et al. (2009)
• The Delphi and GRADE methodology used in the PSOGI 2018 consensus statement on Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and Peritoneal Mesothelioma — R.J. Lurvink, L. Villeneuve, et al. (2021)
• Radiologic Considerations and Standardization of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Imaging Within Clinical Trials: Consensus Statement from the NCI Thoracic Malignancy Steering Committee - International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer - Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation Clinical Trials Planning Meeting — R.R. Gill, A.S. Tsao, et al. (2019)
• Mixtures research at NIEHS: an evolving program — C.V. Rider, D.J. Carlin, et al. (2013)
• Guidelines for Pathologic Diagnosis of Malignant Mesothelioma 2017 Update of the Consensus Statement From the International Mesothelioma Interest Group — A.N. Husain, T.V. Colby, et al. (2018)
• Advancing real-world research in thoracic malignancies: learnings from the international I-O Optimise initiative — S.P. Johnsen, P. Baas, et al. (2025)

Browse more research in BMJ Open Respiratory Research, or return to medical research.