Medical VisualizationCANVASNCT07684703
Consensus And Norms for Medical Visualization Academic Standards Study - A Modified Delphi Study
An observational study of Medical Visualization and Medical Illustration, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.
Trial summary
The goal of this observational study (modified Delphi consensus study) is to establish an international expert consensus on professional standards for medical visualization in medical visualization experts from from around the world, each with a minimum of five years of relevant professional experience. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 27 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Medical Visualization, Medical Illustration, Consensus
- What is being tested?
- Delphi procedure
- How many people
- 50 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTaiwan
- Study dates
- 9 Sep 2026to 31 Dec 2027
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 27 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study aimed to recruit a panel of approximately 35-50 experts. As Delphi studies are consensus-based, the target panel size was guided by diversity of expertise, feasibility, and anticipated attrition rather than by a formal power calculation. The recruitment channel involved the principal investigator compiling a roster of domain experts based on program directors or departmental contacts accredited training institutions, with the principal investigator issuing personalized invitations directly. The invitation process followed a standardized email procedure in three stages: (1) Initial invitation: the principal investigator sent a personalized email explaining the study objectives, expected time commitment (approximately 15 minutes per round), the anonymity mechanism, and data protection measures; (2) Follow-up reminder: if the invitee did not respond within 14 days, a first reminder was sent; if there was still no respon.
Who may be able to join
- Current faculty or staff at one of the accredited degree-granting institutions in medical and scientific illustration
- Current member of a nationally/regionally recognized medical illustration association
- Holder of the Certified Medical Illustrator (CMI) credential issued by the Board of Certification of Medical Illustrators
- Current visualization editor or supervisor at a high-impact medical journal.
- Required to possess at least five years of professional experience in medical visualization or a related discipline
- Willing to complete the Delphi questionnaire, having provided informed consent prior to questionnaire commencement.
Who cannot join
- Prior participation in the focus group or validity assessment stages of this study's initial questionnaire development
- Direct financial interest in commercial AI medical imaging products or related services
- Inability to complete the questionnaire in the designated language (English) in the absence of a corresponding language version.
- Individuals meeting any of the above criteria were excluded to preserve the independence of the consensus process.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: The CANVAS (Consensus And Norms for Medical Visualization Academic Standards) Study: Developing Professional Standards for Effective Medical Visualization - A Modified Delphi Study
The goal of this observational study (modified Delphi consensus study) is to establish an international expert consensus on professional standards for medical visualization in medical visualization experts from from around the world, each with a minimum of five years of relevant professional experience. The specific objectives are:
- to develop and validate core consensus statements on professional standards for medical visualization (consensus threshold ≥75%).
- to quantify the distribution of divergence in professional opinion.
Read more
Participants will:
Fill out a short background survey about their job title, training, work setting, location, and experience with AI image tools.
Rate 10 statements about medical visualization standards on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). These statements cover three topics: accuracy, accessibility, and ethics. Participants will complete up to 3 rounds of anonymous online surveys.
Write comments to explain why they disagree with any statement they rate 1 or 2.
Between rounds, review a summary showing their own earlier ratings and the group's overall results (with no names attached). Then, re-rate any statements the group has not yet agreed on.
Read the detailed description
This study uses a modified Delphi design to develop consensus-based professional standards for medical visualization. The standard Delphi method typically begins with open-ended questions to generate initial statements. In this modified version, a systematic literature review and a focus group replace that first open-ended round, reducing participant burden and producing a more structured starting questionnaire. The study follows the Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies (CREDES) framework and reports results according to the Accurate Consensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) checklist. All activities are conducted online. There is no physical study site.
Questionnaire Development The initial questionnaire was developed in two stages. In the first stage, a systematic literature review identified existing frameworks, guidelines, and evidence related to professional standards in medical visualization. Three databases were searched: PubMed (title and abstract fields), Embase (title field), and the Cochrane Library (title field). The search terms were "medical illustration" OR "medical visualization," limited to clinical studies and review articles published between May 2016 and May 2026. The research team also hand-searched professional guidelines from the Association of Medical Illustrators (AMI) and the Institute of Medical Illustrators (IMI), as well as all issues of The Journal of Biocommunication (JBC). A total of 20 articles were included for synthesis.
In the second stage, the principal investigator convened a focus group of domain experts, including clinicians and three practicing medical illustrators. The group held three online meetings to discuss the literature review findings and draft the initial statements. To protect the independence of the Delphi process, no focus group member serves on the Delphi expert panel. This process produced a 10-item questionnaire organized into three domains: (i) Accuracy and Scientific Rigor (4 items), (ii) Accessibility and Diversity (3 items), and (iii) Disclosure and Ethics (3 items).
Content Validity Assessment Before distribution to the Delphi panel, 10 cross-disciplinary experts rated the relevance of each item on a 4-point scale (1 = not relevant; 4 = highly relevant). Items with an item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) of 0.83 or higher were retained. Items scoring between 0.70 and 0.83 were revised. Items below 0.70 were deleted. None of these 10 validators serve on the Delphi expert panel.
Delphi Round Procedures The study includes up to three sequential rounds of anonymous rating, all conducted via the REDCap platform deployed by the Information Technology Office of National Taiwan University Hospital.
In Round 1, all panel members rate the 10 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). For any item rated 1 or 2, respondents provide an open-ended comment explaining their reasoning. Between rounds, the research team compiles descriptive statistics for each item. Each panel member receives (a) their own prior ratings, (b) anonymized group statistics (mean, median, interquartile range, and rating distribution), and (c) a summary of anonymized qualitative comments. Two research team members independently review qualitative comments using content analysis and draft revision recommendations. Items reaching consensus are finalized and removed from subsequent rounds. In Rounds 2 and 3, panel members re-rate only those items that have not yet reached consensus, in light of group feedback. No real-time interaction or group discussion takes place at any stage.
Consensus Definition An item reaches inclusion consensus when all three of the following criteria are met simultaneously: (1) 75% or more of panel members rate the item 4 or 5; (2) the group median is 4 or higher; and (3) the interquartile range (IQR) is 1 or less. An item reaches exclusion consensus if 75% or more of panel members rate it 1 or 2. Items that do not meet either threshold after three rounds are classified as non-consensus and reported descriptively.
Stopping Criteria The consultation process ends after a maximum of three rounds, regardless of item-level consensus status. If all items reach consensus before the third round, the process ends early. If the number of continuously participating members falls below 15 in any round, that round is considered unable to guarantee representativeness, and the Delphi process is terminated early.
Statistical Analysis Plan Descriptive statistics summarize expert ratings for each item, reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), supplemented by median and IQR. All tests are two-tailed, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Inter-rater agreement is assessed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W), interpreted as weak (W < 0.3), moderate (0.3 ≤ W ≤ 0.7), or strong (W > 0.7). All analyses are performed in IBM SPSS Statistics; graphical visualizations are produced in GraphPad Prism.
- Conditions
- Medical Visualization, Medical Illustration, Consensus
- Being tested
- Delphi procedure
- Keywords
- Medical Visualization, Medical illustration, Modified Delphi method, Expert consensus
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Delphi procedureOther
The study involves generating consensus statements by experts on medical visualization from around the world on professional standards for medical illustration and visualization - covering accuracy and scientific rigor, accessibility and diversity, and disclosure and ethics - using a modified Delphi process.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Delphi Panel | Experts were invited from medical illustration training programs or professional associations worldwide. Receives: Other: Delphi procedure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Proportion of Statements Reaching Expert Consensus
The proportion of the 10 initial professional standard statements (across three domains: Accuracy \& Scientific Rigor; Accessibility \& Diversity; Disclosure \& Ethics) that reach the predefined consensus threshold, defined as the simultaneous fulfillment of three criteria: (1) ≥75% of panel members assigning a rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree); (2) group median ≥4; and (3) interquartile range (IQR) ≤1. Items meeting all three criteria are classified as "inclusion consensus." Items rated 1 or 2 by ≥75% of panel members are classified as "exclusion consensus." Items meeting neither threshold after three rounds are classified as "non-consensus."
Measured: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Agreement Rate for Each Consensus Statement
The percentage of expert panel members rating each of the 10 professional standard statements as 4 (Agree) or 5 (Strongly Agree) on a 5-point Likert scale, reported per round. This is the principal component of the tripartite consensus definition.
Measured: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Secondary outcomes (4)
Inter-Rater Reliability
Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W) measuring the degree of agreement among expert panel members across all rated items. Interpretive thresholds: weak (W < 0.3), moderate (0.3 ≤ W ≤ 0.7), strong (W > 0.7).
Measured: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Demographic and Professional Composition of the Expert Panel
Descriptive summary of the expert panel composition, including distribution of primary professional discipline (e.g., surgical illustration, anatomical/educational illustration, molecular/cellular visualization, 3D modeling, animation/interactive media, patient education, science communication), geographic region (North America, Europe, East Asia), highest educational degree, years of professional experience, and experience with generative AI imaging tools.
Measured: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Number of Delphi Rounds Required to Reach Consensus per Statement
The number of Delphi rounds (out of a maximum of 3) required for each individual statement to meet the predefined consensus threshold. Statements not reaching consensus after 3 rounds are classified as "non-consensus" and reported descriptively.
Measured: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Qualitative Themes of Expert Disagreement
Thematic categories identified through content analysis of open-ended written comments provided by panel members.
Measured: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Jul 2026
- Study start9 Sep 2026
- Primary completion30 Apr 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Medical VisualizationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by National Taiwan University HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- National Taiwan University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Monal, Yu-Hsuan Chang, M.D., Principal investigator, National Taiwan University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07684703
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 202606124RIND
- Acronym
- CANVAS
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 29 Jun 2026
- Last updated
- 11 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: This study employs the Delphi consensus methodology, in which data are derived from expert panelists' professional opinions rather than from patient encounters, medical records, biological specimens, or identifiable clinical information. As such, the study does not generate individual participant data (IPD) in the conventional sense. Furthermore, respondent anonymity is a fundamental methodological requirement of the Delphi technique, as it minimizes the influence of authority bias and preserves the independence of each panelist's judgment across iterative survey rounds. Disclosing identifiable expert-level responses would compromise this core methodological principle. Aggregated, de-identified consensus results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications.
Publications
Alon L, Shoval DH, Levkovich I. Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review. NPJ Digit Med. 2026 Apr 18;9(1):469. doi: 10.1038/s41746-026-02608-3.
PubMed 42000932Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
PubMed 16977646Manyara AM, Purvis A, Ciani O, Collins GS, Taylor RS. Sample size in multistakeholder Delphi surveys: at what minimum sample size do replicability of results stabilize? J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Oct;174:111485. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111485. Epub 2024 Jul 26.
PubMed 39069013Gattrell WT, Logullo P, van Zuuren EJ, Price A, Hughes EL, Blazey P, Winchester CC, Tovey D, Goldman K, Hungin AP, Harrison N. ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi. PLoS Med. 2024 Jan 23;21(1):e1004326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326. eCollection 2024 Jan.
PubMed 38261576Junger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017 Sep;31(8):684-706. doi: 10.1177/0269216317690685. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
PubMed 28190381Young JQ, Van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive Load Theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach. 2014 May;36(5):371-84. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
PubMed 24593808Calkins CM, Franciosi JP, Kolesari GL. Human anatomical science and illustration: the origin of two inseparable disciplines. Clin Anat. 1999;12(2):120-9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1999)12:23.0.CO;2-V.
PubMed 10089038Hajar R. Medical illustration: art in medical education. Heart Views. 2011 Apr;12(2):83-91. doi: 10.4103/1995-705X.86023. No abstract available.
PubMed 22121469
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The CANVAS (Consensus And Norms for Medical Visualization Academic Standards) Study: Developing Professional Standards for Effective Medical Visualization - A Modified Delphi Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07684703
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CANVAS / 202606124RIND
- Conditions
- Medical Visualization, Medical Illustration, Consensus
- Keywords
- Medical Visualization, Medical illustration, Modified Delphi method, Expert consensus
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 50 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- National Taiwan University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
- Study start
- 9 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Apr 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 6 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this observational study (modified Delphi consensus study) is to establish an international expert consensus on professional standards for medical visualization in medical visualization experts from from around the world, each with a minimum of five years of relevant professional experience. The specific objectives are:
- to develop and validate core consensus statements on professional standards for medical visualization (consensus threshold ≥75%).
- to quantify the distribution of divergence in professional opinion.
Participants will:
Fill out a short background survey about their job title, training, work setting, location, and experience with AI image tools.
Rate 10 statements about medical visualization standards on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). These statements cover three topics: accuracy, accessibility, and ethics. Participants will complete up to 3 rounds of anonymous online surveys.
Write comments to explain why they disagree with any statement they rate 1 or 2.
Between rounds, review a summary showing their own earlier ratings and the group's overall results (with no names attached). Then, re-rate any statements the group has not yet agreed on.
Detailed description
This study uses a modified Delphi design to develop consensus-based professional standards for medical visualization. The standard Delphi method typically begins with open-ended questions to generate initial statements. In this modified version, a systematic literature review and a focus group replace that first open-ended round, reducing participant burden and producing a more structured starting questionnaire. The study follows the Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies (CREDES) framework and reports results according to the Accurate Consensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) checklist. All activities are conducted online. There is no physical study site.
Questionnaire Development The initial questionnaire was developed in two stages. In the first stage, a systematic literature review identified existing frameworks, guidelines, and evidence related to professional standards in medical visualization. Three databases were searched: PubMed (title and abstract fields), Embase (title field), and the Cochrane Library (title field). The search terms were "medical illustration" OR "medical visualization," limited to clinical studies and review articles published between May 2016 and May 2026. The research team also hand-searched professional guidelines from the Association of Medical Illustrators (AMI) and the Institute of Medical Illustrators (IMI), as well as all issues of The Journal of Biocommunication (JBC). A total of 20 articles were included for synthesis.
In the second stage, the principal investigator convened a focus group of domain experts, including clinicians and three practicing medical illustrators. The group held three online meetings to discuss the literature review findings and draft the initial statements. To protect the independence of the Delphi process, no focus group member serves on the Delphi expert panel. This process produced a 10-item questionnaire organized into three domains: (i) Accuracy and Scientific Rigor (4 items), (ii) Accessibility and Diversity (3 items), and (iii) Disclosure and Ethics (3 items).
Content Validity Assessment Before distribution to the Delphi panel, 10 cross-disciplinary experts rated the relevance of each item on a 4-point scale (1 = not relevant; 4 = highly relevant). Items with an item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) of 0.83 or higher were retained. Items scoring between 0.70 and 0.83 were revised. Items below 0.70 were deleted. None of these 10 validators serve on the Delphi expert panel.
Delphi Round Procedures The study includes up to three sequential rounds of anonymous rating, all conducted via the REDCap platform deployed by the Information Technology Office of National Taiwan University Hospital.
In Round 1, all panel members rate the 10 statements on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). For any item rated 1 or 2, respondents provide an open-ended comment explaining their reasoning. Between rounds, the research team compiles descriptive statistics for each item. Each panel member receives (a) their own prior ratings, (b) anonymized group statistics (mean, median, interquartile range, and rating distribution), and (c) a summary of anonymized qualitative comments. Two research team members independently review qualitative comments using content analysis and draft revision recommendations. Items reaching consensus are finalized and removed from subsequent rounds. In Rounds 2 and 3, panel members re-rate only those items that have not yet reached consensus, in light of group feedback. No real-time interaction or group discussion takes place at any stage.
Consensus Definition An item reaches inclusion consensus when all three of the following criteria are met simultaneously: (1) 75% or more of panel members rate the item 4 or 5; (2) the group median is 4 or higher; and (3) the interquartile range (IQR) is 1 or less. An item reaches exclusion consensus if 75% or more of panel members rate it 1 or 2. Items that do not meet either threshold after three rounds are classified as non-consensus and reported descriptively.
Stopping Criteria The consultation process ends after a maximum of three rounds, regardless of item-level consensus status. If all items reach consensus before the third round, the process ends early. If the number of continuously participating members falls below 15 in any round, that round is considered unable to guarantee representativeness, and the Delphi process is terminated early.
Statistical Analysis Plan Descriptive statistics summarize expert ratings for each item, reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), supplemented by median and IQR. All tests are two-tailed, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Inter-rater agreement is assessed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W), interpreted as weak (W < 0.3), moderate (0.3 ≤ W ≤ 0.7), or strong (W > 0.7). All analyses are performed in IBM SPSS Statistics; graphical visualizations are produced in GraphPad Prism.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Delphi Panel | – | Other: Delphi procedureExperts were invited from medical illustration training programs or professional associations worldwide. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 27 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study aimed to recruit a panel of approximately 35-50 experts. As Delphi studies are consensus-based, the target panel size was guided by diversity of expertise, feasibility, and anticipated attrition rather than by a formal power calculation. The recruitment channel involved the principal investigator compiling a roster of domain experts based on program directors or departmental contacts accredited training institutions, with the principal investigator issuing personalized invitations directly. The invitation process followed a standardized email procedure in three stages: (1) Initial invitation: the principal investigator sent a personalized email explaining the study objectives, expected time commitment (approximately 15 minutes per round), the anonymity mechanism, and data protection measures; (2) Follow-up reminder: if the invitee did not respond within 14 days, a first reminder was sent; if there was still no respon.
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Current faculty or staff at one of the accredited degree-granting institutions in medical and scientific illustration
- Current member of a nationally/regionally recognized medical illustration association
- Holder of the Certified Medical Illustrator (CMI) credential issued by the Board of Certification of Medical Illustrators
- Current visualization editor or supervisor at a high-impact medical journal.
- Required to possess at least five years of professional experience in medical visualization or a related discipline
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Prior participation in the focus group or validity assessment stages of this study's initial questionnaire development
- Direct financial interest in commercial AI medical imaging products or related services
- Inability to complete the questionnaire in the designated language (English) in the absence of a corresponding language version.
- Individuals meeting any of the above criteria were excluded to preserve the independence of the consensus process.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Delphi procedureThe study involves generating consensus statements by experts on medical visualization from around the world on professional standards for medical illustration and visualization - covering accuracy and scientific rigor, accessibility and diversity, and disclosure and ethics - using a modified Delphi process. | Other | Delphi Panel |
Primary outcome
Proportion of Statements Reaching Expert Consensus
Time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
The proportion of the 10 initial professional standard statements (across three domains: Accuracy \& Scientific Rigor; Accessibility \& Diversity; Disclosure \& Ethics) that reach the predefined consensus threshold, defined as the simultaneous fulfillment of three criteria: (1) ≥75% of panel members assigning a rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree); (2) group median ≥4; and (3) interquartile range (IQR) ≤1. Items meeting all three criteria are classified as "inclusion consensus." Items rated 1 or 2 by ≥75% of panel members are classified as "exclusion consensus." Items meeting neither threshold after three rounds are classified as "non-consensus."
Agreement Rate for Each Consensus Statement
Time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
The percentage of expert panel members rating each of the 10 professional standard statements as 4 (Agree) or 5 (Strongly Agree) on a 5-point Likert scale, reported per round. This is the principal component of the tripartite consensus definition.
4 secondary outcomes
Inter-Rater Reliability
Time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Demographic and Professional Composition of the Expert Panel
Time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Number of Delphi Rounds Required to Reach Consensus per Statement
Time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Qualitative Themes of Expert Disagreement
Time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Sep 2026.
- Background: PubMed 42000932Alon L, Shoval DH, Levkovich I. Bias, representation, and clinical fidelity in AI-generated images for medical education: a systematic literature review. NPJ Digit Med. 2026 Apr 18;9(1):469. doi: 10.1038/s41746-026-02608-3.
- Background: PubMed 16977646Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489-97. doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
- Background: PubMed 39069013Manyara AM, Purvis A, Ciani O, Collins GS, Taylor RS. Sample size in multistakeholder Delphi surveys: at what minimum sample size do replicability of results stabilize? J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Oct;174:111485. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111485. Epub 2024 Jul 26.
- Background: PubMed 38261576Gattrell WT, Logullo P, van Zuuren EJ, Price A, Hughes EL, Blazey P, Winchester CC, Tovey D, Goldman K, Hungin AP, Harrison N. ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi. PLoS Med. 2024 Jan 23;21(1):e1004326. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326. eCollection 2024 Jan.
- Background: PubMed 28190381Junger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017 Sep;31(8):684-706. doi: 10.1177/0269216317690685. Epub 2017 Feb 13.
- Background: PubMed 24593808Young JQ, Van Merrienboer J, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive Load Theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach. 2014 May;36(5):371-84. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290. Epub 2014 Mar 4.
- Background: PubMed 10089038Calkins CM, Franciosi JP, Kolesari GL. Human anatomical science and illustration: the origin of two inseparable disciplines. Clin Anat. 1999;12(2):120-9. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1999)12:23.0.CO;2-V.
- Background: PubMed 22121469Hajar R. Medical illustration: art in medical education. Heart Views. 2011 Apr;12(2):83-91. doi: 10.4103/1995-705X.86023. No abstract available.
- 23\. Accreditation Review Committee for the Medical Illustrator (ARC-MI). Standards and Guidelines for the Accreditation of Educational Programs in Medical Illustration. Chicago, IL: CAAHEP; 2014.Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. This study employs the Delphi consensus methodology, in which data are derived from expert panelists' professional opinions rather than from patient encounters, medical records, biological specimens, or identifiable clinical information. As such, the study does not generate individual participant data (IPD) in the conventional sense. Furthermore, respondent anonymity is a fundamental methodological requirement of the Delphi technique, as it minimizes the influence of authority bias and preserves the independence of each panelist's judgment across iterative survey rounds. Disclosing identifiable expert-level responses would compromise this core methodological principle. Aggregated, de-identified consensus results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications.
Related trials for Medical Visualization
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Predictors of Successful Office Operative Hysteroscopy Using a Mini-Resectoscope
Retained Products of Conception, Hysteroscopy
Not yet recruiting
Drone Transport of Deceased-Donor Kidney Grafts Between Two French Hospitals Before Transplantation: a Pilot Safety Study
Kidney Failure, Chronic, Kidney Transplantation
Not yet recruitingObservational study
City-Wide Implementation and Evaluation of the B-OK Bottles for HIV Treatment Adherence Support in the Philadelphia Ryan White Medical Case Management Network
HIV
Recruiting
Evaluation of Collagen-based Medical Device Treatment Combined With Physiotherapy in Subjects With Achilles Tendinopathy.
Tendinopathy, Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of an Electric Stimulator for Medical Use by Personal (LRTPM1) for Visual Function in Early to Intermediate Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration, AMD
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Monal, Yu-Hsuan Chang, M.D. principal investigator
National Taiwan University Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Medical Visualization and Medical Illustration, run by National Taiwan University Hospital at 1 site in Taiwan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Taiwan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Proportion of Statements Reaching Expert Consensus (time frame: Through study completion, approximately 12 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07684703, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Sep 2026.