Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38709851›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2024

ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.

Patricia Logullo, Esther J van Zuuren, Christopher C Winchester, David Tovey, William T Gattrell, Amy Price, Niall Harrison, Keith Goldman, Alison Chisholm, Kirsty Walters and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. International consensus on dose reduction of biologics for patients with psoriasis: The DR. Delphi study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Patricia LogulloCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, and EQUATOR Network UK Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8708-7003
Esther J van ZuurenLeiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4780-0182
Christopher C WinchesterOxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3267-3990
David ToveyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8889-9246
William T GattrellBristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9733-6330
Amy PriceDartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (TDI), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA, previously at Stanford Anesthesia, Informatics and Media Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5200-7322
Niall HarrisonOPEN Health Communications, Marlow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6399-6763
Keith GoldmanGlobal Medical Affairs, AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5497-8413
Alison ChisholmOxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9197-8159
Kirsty WaltersOxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Paul BlazeyDepartment of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8149-9514

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus amongst interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist. METHODS AND

findingsThis paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines. The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables and figures.

conclusionsThe ACCORD materials - including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document - can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

Indexed as

ChecklistConsensusBiomedical ResearchGuidelines as TopicHumansResearch DesignResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID38709851
PMCPMC11198995

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.