Structured magnetic resonance imaging and endoanal ultrasound anal fistulas reporting template (SMART): An interdisciplinary Delphi consensus

Table 2 Questionnaire for the Delphi process

	Questionnaire
Question #1	Is the Park’s classification optimal to be reported by MRI/EAUS for the characterization of the primary tract?
Question #2	Should the Park’s classification be modified or supplemented?
Question #3	Is the location of the primary tract on a clock dial optimal to be reported by MRI/EAUS, or should it be modified?
Question #4	Is the height of the primary tract properly described (≤ 30% and > 30%)?
Question #5	Is the inclusion of the diameter of the fistula in the template correct or should be modified?
Question #6	Should a fistula tract angle be added to the template?
Question #7	Are secondary tracts precisely defined: Number, location, and type?
Question #8	Are internal opening items, such as number, location on a clock dial, and patency complete or require completion?
Question #9	Is information on associated abscess, such as location according to the Corman classification, accurate?
Question #10	Is it sufficient to report sphincter integrity, location of damage, and percentage of sphincter involved?
Question #11	Is the graphic presentation of the fistula included in a template appropriate or it should be modified?
Question #12	Should a video describing the fistula details (if permitted by the rules) supplement the template of the fistula?
Question #13	Does the template include all the most relevant findings for the treatment decisions or other additional elements of the fistula should be included in the template?
Question #14	The following definitions are relevant for examiners describing anal fistulas by MRI and EAUS. Do you accept them in their current form, or do they require modification or addition? In the latter case, please suggest a correction

EAUS: Endoanal ultrasound; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging.