OBJECTIVE: Disagreement exists between rheumatology and primary care societies regarding gout management. This paper describes a formal process for gathering input from stakeholders in the planning of a trial to compare gout management strategies. METHODS: We recruited patients, nurses, physician assistants, primary care clinicians, and rheumatologists to participate in a modified Delphi panel (mDP) to provide input on design of a trial focused on optimal management for primary care patients with gout. The 16 panelists received a plain-language briefing document that discussed the rationale for the trial, key clinical issues in gout, and aspects of trial design. The panelists also received information and considerations on nine voting questions (VQs), judged to be the key design questions. Cognitive interviews with panelists ensured that the VQs were understood by the range of panelists involved in the mDP. Panelists were asked to score all VQs from 1 (definitely no) to 9 (definitely yes). Two voting rounds were conducted-round 1 by email and round 2 by video conference. RESULTS: The VQs were modified through the cognitive interviews. The round 1 voting resulted in consensus on eight items, with consensus defined as median voting score in the same tercile (1-3, 4-6 or 7-9). Re-voting at the meeting (round 2) reached consensus on the remaining item. CONCLUSION: An mDP with various stakeholders facilitated consensus on the design of a trial of different management strategies for chronic gout. This method may be useful for designing trials of clinical questions with substantial disagreement across stakeholders.