van der Sanden Wil J M, Mettes Dirk G, Plasschaert Alphons J M, Grol Richard P T M, Verdonschot Emiel H
University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Department of Cariology and Endodontology, College of Dental Science, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Can Dent Assoc. 2004 May;70(5):301.
The aim of this study was to compare 2 methods for developing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on the management of asymptomatic, impacted mandibular third molars. Outcome measures were the mean time invested by the participants for each method, the quality of the CPGs measured using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) indicator and observations of the group discussions. We used a national consensus procedure following the Rand modified Delphi procedure (2 panels) and a local consensus procedure (2 existing dental peer groups). The mean time spent was about equal for the 2 methods. The quality of the CPGs developed by the expert panels was higher than that of the CPGs developed by the dental peer groups. Observation indicated that all group processes were influenced by the chairperson. We concluded that the expert panel method is suitable for developing reliable CPGs on a national or regional level.
本研究的目的是比较两种制定关于无症状、阻生下颌第三磨牙管理的临床实践指南（CPG）的方法。结果指标包括参与者对每种方法投入的平均时间、使用《研究与评价指南评估》（AGREE）指标衡量的CPG质量以及小组讨论的观察情况。我们采用了遵循兰德改良德尔菲法（两个小组）的全国共识程序和一个地方共识程序（两个现有的牙科同行小组）。两种方法花费的平均时间大致相同。专家小组制定的CPG质量高于牙科同行小组制定的CPG。观察表明，所有小组过程都受到主持人的影响。我们得出结论，专家小组方法适用于在国家或地区层面制定可靠的CPG。
