{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02728426395939086, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008248730964467006, 'mean_word_length': 5.208661417322834, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The use of the Delphi method for hand surgery research

A wealth of literature is available about most hand conditions, but many important questions remain unanswered. Good quality evidence is lacking, even for some common hand disorders (Garcia-Elias, 2017) and the quality of some randomized controlled trials appear poor (Long et al., 2018). Though level I studies are most desirable, these studies are resource consuming. More importantly, the required evidence to answer important research questions may not be provided within a useful time period. For example, many basic questions regarding the management of distal radius fractures are still unanswered. A huge number of trials exist, but many are low quality and uncertainty exists in clinical practice. The Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial (DRAFFT) was a well conducted, pragmatic, multicentre, randomized control trial, yet has still attracted controversy and the usefulness and generalizability of the results has been questioned (Costa et al., 2015). In situations in which evidence is lacking, another option is to generate consensus for research questions by utilizing expert knowledge. This approach may be questioned because these are mostly expert opinions (Level 5 evidence), but it is quick, cheap and instructive. The most well-known method is the Delphi process, which was developed during the Cold War to estimate the impact of technology on warfare. Experts were requested to predict potential enemy attacks. Anonymous feedback was given and the process continued until consensus was gained.