Send us a text

This conversation focuses on the Delphi process for a new MASLD nomenclature. It starts with Jeff Lazarus describing what a Delphi process is and how it worked here. Jeff and two other key players in this process, Maru Rinella and Meena Bansal, describe what they consider some of its greatest strengths as well as one thing they wish had worked out better.

Jeff's description focuses on the four rounds of data gathering and some key activities that transpired before the formal process began. He goes on to identify what he considers some of the pivotal outputs of this one. In particular, Jeff describes the focus on patients with alcohol and diet issues, and the naming of a new discreet disease for these patients (MetALD) as being “revolutionary.” 

Roger Green agrees with Jeff's assessment that the naming of MetALD was an important outcome and that the process had clear benefits in this way. He goes on to ask why people opted out of the process. Maru Rinella comments that some people opted out after the third phase due to disagreements with the direction of the activity. Roger refines the question to ask why people opted out in the first place. Jeff and Maru note the amount of work required for this kind of activity, and he, Maru Rinella and Meena Bansal all describe that not all invitees understood how important this process would be upon first invitation. Jeff and Maru go on to mention that the participation rate was high, somewhere around 80%.

Roger asks what could have gone better. Maru, Jeff and Meena Bansal each note groups for which they wish participation had been broader, including possibly a broader representation of stakeholders (notably, more patients, although Maru notes this was not for lack of trying) and more organizations or countries.