ArticleBMC research notes2016
SEaRCH™ expert panel process: streamlining the link between evidence and practice.
Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Austrian Pompe Outcome Consensus (APOC): a national Delphi study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Health and safety management actions to reduce the impact that medication can have on occupational risks in SMEs.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The current state of the quality of homeopathic clinical research.Complementary therapies in medicine · 2025Review
- Applying Nociplastic Pain Criteria in Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Vignette Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Laxative use in adults with intellectual disabilities: development of prescribing guidelines.BJPsych open · 2024Article
- Co-Design and Co-Production of a Goal Setting Tool for Autistic Adolescents and Adults.Autism in adulthood · 2023Article
- Article
- Establishing fidelity for the creating opportunities for personal empowerment: Symptom and technology management resources (COPE-STAR) intervention.Journal of advanced nursing · 2020Article
- Article
- Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development.The patient · 2020Article
- Confronting challenges to opioid risk mitigation in the U.S. health system: Recommendations from a panel of national experts.PloS one · 2020Article
- Community-Directed Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing Interventions Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Protocol for an E-Delphi Study in Toronto, Canada.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- A Modified Communication and Optimal Resolution Program for Intersystem Medical Error Discovery: Protocol for an Implementation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- The challenge of determining appropriate care in the era of patient-centered care and rising health care costs.Journal of health services research & policy · 2019Article
- Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 4: Putting Practice Back Into Evidence-based Practice by Recruiting Clinics and Patients.Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics · 2019Observational
- Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 3: Designing Instruments With Patient Input.Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics · 2019Observational
- Claim Assessment Profile: A Method for Capturing Healthcare Evidence in the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH).Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2017Article
- Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH): A Streamlined, Systematic, Phased Approach for Determining "What Works" in Healthcare.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2017Article
- A Time for Massage.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2016Article
- Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL(©)): streamlining the systematic review process and creating utility for evidence-based health care.BMC research notes · 2015Article
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
backgroundWith rising health care costs and the diversity of scientific and clinical information available to health care providers it is essential to have methodologies that synthesize and distill the quality of information and make it practical to clinicians, patients and policy makers. Too often research synthesis results in the statement that "more and better research is needed" or the conclusions are slanted toward the biases of one type of stakeholder. Such conclusions are discouraging to clinicians and patients who need better guidance on the decisions they make every day.
methodExpert panels are one method for offering valuable insight into the scientific evidence and what experts believe about its application to a given clinical situation. However, with improper management their conclusions can end up being biased or even wrong. There are several types of expert panels, but two that have been extensively involved in bringing evidence to bear on clinical practice are consensus panels, and appropriateness panels. These types of panels are utilized by organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, RAND, and other organizations to provide clinical guidance. However, there is a need for a more cost effective and efficient approach in conducting these panels. In this paper we describe both types of expert panels and ways to adapt those models to form part of Samueli Institute's Scientific Evaluation and Research of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™) program. DISCUSSION: Expert Panels provide evidence-based information to guide research, practice and health care decision making. The panel process used in SEaRCH seeks to customize, synthesize and streamline these methods. By making the process transparent the panel process informs decisions about clinical appropriateness and research agenda decisions.
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.