Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10339021›Full record

ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1998

Formal consensus and consultation: a qualitative method for development of a guideline for dementia.

H Trickey, I Harvey, G Wilcock, D Sharp

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
12.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H TrickeyDivision of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, UK.
I Harvey
G Wilcock
D Sharp
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo use a formal consensus method--the nominal group technique--for developing a clinical practice guideline to improve the diagnosis, needs assessment, and management of dementia at the primary/secondary care interface. To assess the usefulness of this method in an area where there is a dearth of clinical trials thus precluding an evidence-based approach.

designA qualitative and iterative method was used. The guideline was developed by an expert panel using the nominal group technique, incorporating the deliberations of a Primary Care Professionals' Task Group, recent reviews in the scientific literature, information from semistructured interviews with local specialists, and a local questionnaire survey.

settingMainly Bristol but incorporating other parts of the United Kingdom especially the south and west. SUBJECTS: Expert panel group (including users and non-statutory organisations), local general practitioners (GPs), professionals carrying out the health check for people over 75, local geriatricians and psychogeriatricians, and primary care professionals with an interest in dementia. MAIN MEASURES: Items important in dementia from the nominal group in response to three questions on diagnosis, needs assessment, and management, ranked into a series of top 10 items for each area and allocated a score according to relative importance to each member; summary outputs from the questionnaire survey, semistructured interviews, and primary care professionals' task group.

resultsA clinical practice guideline covering diagnosis, needs assessment, and management of dementia in primary care was produced in the form of an algorithm and a management sheet.

conclusionsA formal consensus method can be used as an acceptable alternative to the evidence-based approach when developing guidelines in situations in which evidence is scarce, in which the guideline is intended as an aid in linking different stages of care, and in which practical and political considerations--such as the links between agencies--are important.

Indexed as

Consensus Statements as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicDementiaHealth Services ResearchHumansNeeds AssessmentPrimary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID10339021
PMCPMC2483612
OpenAlexW2122578056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.