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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |