Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35818027›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Methodology for the development of National Multidisciplinary Management Recommendations using a multi-stage meta-consensus initiative.

John C Hardman, Kevin Harrington, Tom Roques, Sanjai Sood, Jemy Jose, Shane Lester, Paul Pracy, Ricard Simo, Costa Repanos, Frank Stafford and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Clinical practice guidelines for management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary: an AGREE II appraisal.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023
    Review
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

16 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

John C HardmanHead and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK.
Kevin HarringtonHead and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK.
Tom RoquesDepartment of Oncology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Sanjai SoodDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Jemy JoseDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Shane LesterDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
Paul PracyDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Ricard SimoDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Costa RepanosDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Frank StaffordDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK.
Chris JenningsDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Stuart C WinterDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Hugh WheatlyDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK.
Jarrod HomerDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
B Nirmal KumarDepartment of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Wrightington Wigan & Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK.
Vinidh PaleriHead and Neck Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK. vinidh.paleri@rmh.nhs.uk.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust · GBManchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBPortsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSouth Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSouth Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust · GBWrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21993
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethods for developing national recommendations vary widely. The successful adoption of new guidance into routine practice is dependent on buy-in from the clinicians delivering day-to-day patient care and must be considerate of existing resource constraints, as well as being aspirational in its scope. This initiative aimed to produce guidelines for the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNSCCUP) using a novel methodology to maximise the likelihood of national adoption.

methodsA voluntary steering committee oversaw 3 phases of development: 1) clarification of topic areas, data collection and assimilation, including systematic reviews and a National Audit of Practice; 2) a National Consensus Day, presenting data from the above to generate candidate consensus statements for indicative voting by attendees; and 3) a National Delphi Exercise seeking agreement on the candidate consensus statements, including representatives from all 58 UK Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Teams (MDT). Methodology was published online in advance of the Consensus Day and Delphi exercise.

resultsFour topic areas were identified to frame guideline development. The National Consensus Day was attended by 227 participants (54 in-person and 173 virtual). Results from 7 new systematic reviews were presented, alongside 7 expert stakeholder presentations and interim data from the National Audit and from relevant ongoing Clinical Trials. This resulted in the generation of 35 statements for indicative voting by attendees which, following steering committee ratification, led to 30 statements entering the National Delphi exercise. After 3 rounds (with a further statement added after round 1), 27 statements had reached 'strong agreement' (n = 25, 2, 0 for each round, respectively), a single statement achieved 'agreement' only (round 3), and 'no agreement' could be reached for 3 statements (response rate 98% for each round). Subsequently, 28 statements were adopted into the National MDT Guidelines for HNSCCUP.

conclusionsThe described methodology demonstrated an effective multi-phase strategy for the development of national practice recommendations. It may serve as a cost-effective model for future guideline development for controversial or rare conditions where there is a paucity of available evidence or where there is significant variability in management practices across a healthcare service.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniquePractice Guidelines as TopicConsensusCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansAuditCost effectivenessDelphiGuidelinesHead and neck cancerUnknown primary

Identifiers

PMID35818027
PMCPMC9275134
OpenAlexW4285011529

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.