ArticleBMJ open2026
Consensus project to develop a reporting checklist extension for collaboratively developed guidelines: protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent reporting standards for guidelines include the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Tool and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare Checklist. These recommend the minimum items that should be reported by clinical practice guideline developers. However, the reporting of guidelines that are developed between two or more organisations sharing responsibilities varies in quality and completeness regarding the documentation of the collaboration process. We aim to develop an extension document for the reporting of guidelines in which two or more groups share responsibilities and resources for development and dissemination. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review of literature relevant to collaboratively developed guidelines over the past 10 years will be conducted, adherent to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Statement, to inform a long list of possible elements to be included in this extension. The qualitative data from focus group sessions among steering committee members will inform the initial list before removal of duplications and iterative amendments. A representative international, multidisciplinary group of key partners will then participate in a Delphi survey to identify a critical short list of reporting elements. All panel and steering committee members will be later invited to a consensus conference to review the provisionally included elements for final inclusion in a list of extension items. Steering committee members will then conduct a pilot of the final extension. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Northwestern University Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not constitute human subjects research (STU00224953). The final extension instrument and explanation and elaboration document will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, the Guidelines International Network website as a free public resource, social media and outreach to journals and guideline-developing organisations.
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.