Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Muskuloskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford and EQUATOR Network UK Centre, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
BMJ Open. 2022 Sep 8;12(9):e065154. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065154.
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.
Systematic review.
Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Academic Search Premier and PsycINFO from inception until 7 January 2022.
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.
Screening and data extraction of eligible studies were carried out independently by two authors. Reporting quality items addressed by the studies were synthesised narratively.
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.
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.
确定共识方法报告质量的证据，并为 ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) 项目选择潜在的清单项目，以制定共识报告指南。
系统评价。
从建库至 2022 年 1 月 7 日，在 Embase、MEDLINE、Web of Science、PubMed、Cochrane Library、Emcare、Academic Search Premier 和 PsycINFO 中检索共识方法报告质量的研究、综述和已发表的指南，以改善生物医学或临床实践中的健康结果。排除仅使用或描述共识方法但未对其报告质量进行评论的研究报告。未应用语言限制。
研究、综述和已发表的指南，涉及共识方法报告质量，以改善生物医学或临床实践中的健康结果。排除仅使用或描述共识方法但未对其报告质量进行评论的研究报告。未应用语言限制。
两名作者独立进行了筛选和合格研究的数据提取。以叙述性方式综合了研究中涉及的报告质量项目。
纳入了 18 项研究：5 项系统评价、4 项叙述性综述、3 项研究论文、3 项会议摘要、2 项研究指导文件和 1 项方案。大多数研究表明共识方法的报告质量可以提高。常见的报告项目包括：共识小组的组成、共识的定义和达成共识的阈值。报告项目最少的是：患者参与、指导委员会、主席、联合主席的作用、小组成员的利益冲突和资金。从纳入的研究中提取的数据揭示了数据提取表中未捕获的其他项目，例如偏离方案的理由或鼓励小组成员响应的激励措施。
本系统评价的结果证实了共识方法报告清单的必要性，并提供了一系列潜在的清单项目以进行报告。ACCORD 项目的下一步工作基于本系统评价，重点就这些项目达成共识，以制定报告指南。
