ArticleQuality & safety in health care2005
An experimental study of determinants of the extent of disagreement within clinical guideline development groups.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations: PANELVIEW instrument development.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020Pooled it
- Priorities for enhancing nurses' and social workers' competence and confidence in helping families support dependent children through parental death. A classic-Delphi survey.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Diabetes Capabilities for the Healthcare Workforce Identified via a 3-Staged Modified Delphi Technique.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- An Investigation of Healthcare Professionals' Motivation in Public and Mission Hospitals in Meru County, Kenya.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study.International wound journal · 2020Article
- Quality indicators for ambulatory care for older adults with diabetes and comorbid conditions: A Delphi study.PloS one · 2018Article
- Evaluation of upper extremity neurorehabilitation using technology: a European Delphi consensus study within the EU COST Action Network on Robotics for Neurorehabilitation.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2016Article
- Article
- Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings.BMC psychiatry · 2015Article
- Conducting online expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
- Rigorous development does not ensure that guidelines are acceptable to a panel of knowledgeable providers.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effect of design features and clinical and social cues on the extent of disagreement among participants in a formal consensus development process.
methodsFactorial design involving 16 groups consisting of 135 general practitioners (GPs) and 42 mental health professionals from England. The groups rated the appropriateness of four mental health interventions for three conditions (chronic back pain, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome) in the context of various clinical and social cues. The groups differed in three design features: provision of a systematic literature review (versus not provided), group composition (mixed versus GP only), and assumptions about the healthcare resources available (realistic versus idealistic). Disagreement was measured using the mean absolute deviation from a group's median rating for a scenario.
resultsNone of the design features significantly affected the extent of disagreement within groups (all p>0.3). Disagreement did differ between treatments (closer consensus for cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy than for brief psychodynamic intervention therapy and antidepressants) and cues (closer consensus for depressed patients and patients willing to try any treatment).
conclusionIn terms of the extent of disagreement in the groups in this study, formal consensus development was a robust technique in that the results were not dependent on the way it was conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.