Questionnaire responses were scored on a 9-point Likert scale
(consensus: mean score ≤3 with ≤1 outlier; near consensus: mean score
≤3.5 with ≤2 outliers; no consensus: mean score >3.5 or ≥3
outliers). *The SC used the results of the literature search to design
the Delphi questionnaire, which consisted of 23 consensus statements.
Published work identified in the literature search that was relevant to
each consensus statement was provided to all participating experts for
context. †Owing to expert feedback on the
questionnaire, which noted that some experts felt that they were not
fully qualified to answer some questions outside their specialty, a post
hoc subgroup analysis stratified by relevant specialty(ies) was
conducted to explore whether this affected the levels of consensus.‡Based on feedback from the experts, which excluded
all statements that had achieved consensus in the first round. One
statement was made optional so that experts could abstain from voting if
they felt that they did not have relevant expertise. Seven statements
included responses from experts within the dermatology subgroup, which
included experts with specialist knowledge about dermatological diseases
(allergists, clinical immunologists, dermatologists, internal medicine
specialists and paediatricians), or the respiratory subgroup, which
included experts with a high level of knowledge about respiratory
diseases (allergists, clinical immunologists, ENT specialists, internal
medicine specialists, paediatricians and pulmonologists).§The SC and experts gathered virtually on 22 October
2020 to review and discuss the conclusions from the Delphi
questionnaires. The virtual meeting was facilitated by Keena McKillen on
behalf of OPEN Health Medical Communications. The SC moderated breakout
sessions where the experts discussed how the results of the Delphi
questionnaires may impact the holistic care of patients with type 2
inflammatory diseases within their respective specialties.¶At the virtual meeting, a member of the SC, U.S.
Björnsdóttir, provided insight into the role of type 2 inflammation as a
driver of eosinophilic esophagitis. After reviewing all available
evidence, it was agreed that the corresponding consensus statement
should be re-circulated to the expert group and SC as a third-round
questionnaire.