Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33865324›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

A demonstration of using formal consensus methods within guideline development; a case study.

P Carter, K J M O'Donoghue, K Dworzynski, L O'Shea, V Roberts, T Reeves, A Bastounis, M A Mugglestone, J Fawke, S Pilling

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  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

10 authors.

P CarterCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. Patrice.carter@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3445-6754
K J M O'DonoghueNational Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10-18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
K DworzynskiNational Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10-18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
L O'SheaNational Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10-18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
V RobertsCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
T ReevesNational Guideline Alliance, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 10-18 Union Street, London, SE1 1SZ, UK.
A BastounisCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
M A MugglestoneCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
J FawkeLeicester Neonatal Service, University Hospitals Leicester Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK.
S PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.

Funding

BioMed Central SM-UCLO-MA-0519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecommendations within guidelines are developed by synthesising the best available evidence; when limited evidence is identified recommendations are generally based on informal consensus. However, there are potential biases in group decision making, and formal consensus methods may help reduce these.

methodsWe conducted a case study using formal consensus, to develop one set of recommendations within the Neonatal Parenteral Nutrition guideline being produced for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Statements were generated through identification of published guidelines on several topics relating to neonatal parenteral nutrition. Ten high quality guidelines were included, and 28 statements were generated; these statements were rated by the committee via two rounds of voting. The statements which resulted in agreement were then used to develop the recommendations.

resultsThe approach was systematic and provided transparency. Additionally, a number of lessons were learnt; including the value of selecting the appropriate topic, giving adequate time to the process, and ensuring methodologies are understood by the committee for their value and relevance.

conclusionFormal consensus is a valuable option for use within guideline development when specific criteria are met. The approach provides transparent methodology, ensuring clarity on how recommendations are developed.

Indexed as

ConsensusParenteral NutritionHumansInfant, NewbornPractice Guidelines as TopicFormal consensusGuideline developmentMethodology

Identifiers

PMID33865324
PMCPMC8052943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.