ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025
The Panel Subgroup (PSG) Method: A Valuable Method for Effectively Engaging Panels in the Development of Practice Guidelines.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical practice guidelines rely on expert panels to review evidence and develop recommendations. The traditional approach of engaging experts often relies on periodic full panel meetings which can lead to slow progress and variability in panel engagement. To address these issues, the ASCO introduced the Panel Subgroup (PSG) method, dividing panels into smaller working groups to enhance engagement, distribute workload, and accelerate guideline development. Objective: To evaluate the PSG method on guideline development timelines, its uptake, perceived benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from the perspective of ASCO guideline methodologists. Methods: This study had two phases. Phase 1 was a retrospective review of ASCO guideline administrative data (2017-2024) comparing guidelines developed using the traditional or PSG method. Guidelines were included if they were de novo, had over 50 included studies, and complete administrative records. Data extracted included number of panelists, research questions, studies reviewed, subgroups (for PSG), and development time. Phase 2 involved qualitative interviews with methodologists who used the PSG method to explore experiences, benefits, and challenges. Results: Sixteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria: seven used the traditional method and nine used the PSG method. The average development time was 13 months (SD, 2.41) for the PSG method compared to traditional (23 months; SD, 6.30). PSG uptake among methodologists was 75% (6/8). Reported benefits included improved expert engagement, deeper evidence analysis, better collaboration, and shared authorship. Challenges included greater time demands, increased coordination, writing inconsistencies, and the need for full panel buy-in. Conclusion: The PSG method offers a promising structure to improve engagement and streamline productivity. While not without challenges, it may be particularly useful for large panels and complex guidelines when applied thoughtfully.
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.