GuidelineVahti

Panel consensus for guideline groups · in the browser

Your panel votes 1–9 on each statement. GuidelineVahti turns those votes into RAND/UCLA consensus, an implementation priority map, a chance-corrected agreement score, and GRADE recommendations — with the full Delphi round history. Votes stay anonymous; nothing ever leaves the browser.

anonymous · aggregates onlynothing uploadsno backendLayer 3 of the Vahtian evidence ladder
Request early access → The Vahtian house →

What you get

A frozen sample of a 12-panelist guideline round — this is exactly what the tool renders.

Sample output
Panel ordinal agreement (Krippendorff’s α, interval): 0.74 — tentative; read it with the per-statement medians/IQR. Chance-corrected across all statements on the 1–9 scale.

Use a slice thickness ≤ 1.5 mm for nodules < 10 mm. Consensus · FORP1

Importance
9
IQR 0.75
Feasibility
8
IQR 1
% for (7–9)
100%
Votes
12
1–3 · 0
4–6 · 0
7–9 · 12
GRADERecommend (strong, high certainty)

Discharge a stable solid nodule after 12 months of follow-up. No consensus↻ continue — re-vote

Importance
5
IQR 7
Feasibility
5
IQR 6
% for (7–9)
50%
Votes
12
1–3 · 6
4–6 · 0
7–9 · 6
GRADENo recommendation — consensus not reached — the panel is split (extreme-disagreement rule)
Importance × feasibility (median ± IQR · cut at 7)
1 5 9 1 5 9 Feasibility → Importance ↑ S1 S3 S2 S4
Implementation priority
Implement first — high importance · feasible
S1 — imp 9 · feas 8 — slice thickness ≤ 1.5 mm
High importance · low feasibility — enable, then do
S3 — imp 8 · feas 4 — volumetry as the primary growth metric
Feasible · lower importance — optional quick win
S2 — imp 6 · feas 8 — report micro-nodules without measuring

From diagnostic algorithms to treatment recommendations

The same engine, the full GRADE range — direction (for / against) and strength (strong / conditional) follow the panel’s consensus and the evidence certainty.

Sample output · treatment guideline

Offer adjuvant osimertinib after complete resection of stage IB–IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. Consensus · FOR

Median
9
IQR 0.75
% for (7–9)
100%
Certainty
high
Votes
14
GRADERecommend (strong, high certainty)

Routinely add adjuvant immune-checkpoint inhibitor to osimertinib in EGFR-mutated disease. Consensus · AGAINST

Median
2
IQR 1
% in 1–3
86%
Certainty
moderate
Votes
14
GRADERecommend against (strong, moderate certainty)

Extend adjuvant osimertinib beyond 3 years in high-risk resected disease. Consensus · FOR

Median
7
IQR 2
% for (7–9)
79%
Certainty
low
Votes
14
GRADESuggest (conditional, low certainty) — the panel agrees, but low certainty holds it to conditional

A treatment guideline also makes the impact quantitative — projected NNT, survival, toxicity, or cost per recommendation — which can feed the importance/priority ranking. (Two reference guidelines are in progress: a diagnostic pulmonary-nodule guideline and a lung-cancer treatment guideline.)

What it does

Who it’s for

Specialty societies & guideline groupsRun a modified-Delphi/RAND consensus with auditable numbers, not a spreadsheet.
Guideline methodologistsThe consensus, priority, agreement, and GRADE analysis in one place — in the browser.
Medical-communications teamsA defensible, reproducible consensus record for a client guideline.
Living-guideline programmesRe-vote affected statements each cycle; the data file is the versioned source of truth.

Early access

GuidelineVahti is complete and in early access. Pilot partners welcome — pricing on request.

Request early access →