Doha, Qatar: A recent Delphi survey and international e-survey have been conducted to evaluate the utilisation and impact of the Doha Agreement Meeting Classification System for groin pain in athletes. Introduced five years ago to address the issue of inconsistent diagnostic terms for similar injuries, the classification system aimed to create a standardised approach.
The Doha Agreement Meeting Classification System is based on patient-reported injury history and clinical examination findings, and it was the result of a collaborative effort involving 24 international groin experts. However, its widespread acceptance and impact have been a subject of interest.
According to the survey results, published on the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport website, the Doha Agreement Meeting experts reported that they used 8-11 different terms for primary diagnosis in clinical cases, despite the existence of the classification system. However, 50-67% of these experts used the Doha Agreement Meeting terminology.
In an international e-survey involving 51 clinicians, 12-15 different diagnostic terms were used for each clinical case, with 43-55% of clinicians incorporating the Doha Agreement Meeting terminology into their practice.
The survey further revealed that 73-82% of the Doha Agreement Meeting experts and 57-69% of international clinicians reported adopting the classification system in their practice. However, 49 statements proposing amendments to the classification system were suggested, with only seven of them reaching a consensus of over 75%.
In conclusion, five years after its introduction, the Doha Agreement Meeting Classification System has achieved significant adoption among experts and clinicians. Nevertheless, the persistence of diverse diagnostic terminology when dealing with clinical cases highlights the ongoing challenge of standardisation in this field.
Disagreements on proposed amendments further underline the need for continued efforts to refine and improve the classification system. “There is still considerable heterogeneity in diagnostic terminology when clinical cases are presented, and disagreement on statements related to amendments of the current classification system,” the study explained.
