Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36201247›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development.

Esther J van Zuuren, Patricia Logullo, Amy Price, Zbys Fedorowicz, Ellen L Hughes, William T Gattrell

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A comprehensive scoring system for the diagnosis and staging of adhesive capsulitis: development, application, and implications.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Esther J van ZuurenDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands e.j.van_zuuren@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-4780-0182
Patricia LogulloNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Muskuloskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford and EQUATOR Network UK Centre, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Amy PriceStanford Anesthesia, Informatics and Media Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Zbys FedorowiczVeritas Health Sciences Consultancy, Huntingdon, UK.
Ellen L HughesSciwright Limited, Somerset, UK.
William T GattrellGlobal Medical Affairs, Ipsen, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify evidence on the reporting quality of consensus methodology and to select potential checklist items for the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) project to develop a consensus reporting guideline.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Academic Search Premier and PsycINFO from inception until 7 January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies, reviews and published guidance addressing the reporting quality of consensus methodology for improvement of health outcomes in biomedicine or clinical practice. Reports of studies using or describing consensus methods but not commenting on their reporting quality were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening and data extraction of eligible studies were carried out independently by two authors. Reporting quality items addressed by the studies were synthesised narratively.

resultsEighteen studies were included: five systematic reviews, four narrative reviews, three research papers, three conference abstracts, two research guidance papers and one protocol. The majority of studies indicated that the quality of reporting of consensus methodology could be improved. Commonly addressed items were: consensus panel composition; definition of consensus and the threshold for achieving consensus. Items least addressed were: public patient involvement (PPI); the role of the steering committee, chair, cochair; conflict of interest of panellists and funding. Data extracted from included studies revealed additional items that were not captured in the data extraction form such as justification of deviation from the protocol or incentives to encourage panellist response.

conclusionThe results of this systematic review confirmed the need for a reporting checklist for consensus methodology and provided a range of potential checklist items to report. The next step in the ACCORD project builds on this systematic review and focuses on reaching consensus on these items to develop the reporting guideline. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/2rzm9.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch ReportConsensusGuidelines as TopicHumansHealth policyProtocols & guidelinesSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID36201247
PMCPMC9462098

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.