Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Scienc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Zuuren, Esther J, Logullo, Patricia, Price, Amy, Fedorowicz, Zbys, Hughes, Ellen L, Gattrell, William T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9462098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36201247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065154
_version_ 1784787102985093120
author van Zuuren, Esther J
Logullo, Patricia
Price, Amy
Fedorowicz, Zbys
Hughes, Ellen L
Gattrell, William T
author_facet van Zuuren, Esther J
Logullo, Patricia
Price, Amy
Fedorowicz, Zbys
Hughes, Ellen L
Gattrell, William T
author_sort van Zuuren, Esther J
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Systematic 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. RESULTS: Eighteen 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. CONCLUSION: The 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9462098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94620982022-09-14 Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development van Zuuren, Esther J Logullo, Patricia Price, Amy Fedorowicz, Zbys Hughes, Ellen L Gattrell, William T BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVE: To 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. DESIGN: Systematic 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. RESULTS: Eighteen 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. CONCLUSION: The 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9462098/ /pubmed/36201247 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065154 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
van Zuuren, Esther J
Logullo, Patricia
Price, Amy
Fedorowicz, Zbys
Hughes, Ellen L
Gattrell, William T
Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development
title Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development
title_full Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development
title_fullStr Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development
title_full_unstemmed Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development
title_short Existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform ACCORD guideline development
title_sort existing guidance on reporting of consensus methodology: a systematic review to inform accord guideline development
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9462098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36201247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065154
work_keys_str_mv AT vanzuurenestherj existingguidanceonreportingofconsensusmethodologyasystematicreviewtoinformaccordguidelinedevelopment
AT logullopatricia existingguidanceonreportingofconsensusmethodologyasystematicreviewtoinformaccordguidelinedevelopment
AT priceamy existingguidanceonreportingofconsensusmethodologyasystematicreviewtoinformaccordguidelinedevelopment
AT fedorowiczzbys existingguidanceonreportingofconsensusmethodologyasystematicreviewtoinformaccordguidelinedevelopment
AT hughesellenl existingguidanceonreportingofconsensusmethodologyasystematicreviewtoinformaccordguidelinedevelopment
AT gattrellwilliamt existingguidanceonreportingofconsensusmethodologyasystematicreviewtoinformaccordguidelinedevelopment