Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 8;12(9):e065154.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065154.

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

Esther J van Zuuren  1 , Patricia Logullo  2 , Amy Price  3   4 , Zbys Fedorowicz  5 , Ellen L Hughes  6 , William T Gattrell  7
Affiliations

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

Esther J van Zuuren et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Health policy; Protocols & guidelines; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: PL is a member of the UK EQUATOR Centre, an organisation that promotes the use of reporting guidelines, many of which are developed using consensus methods, and she is personally involved in the development of other reporting guidelines. ELH has worked with Ogilvy Health UK on consensus projects. WTG is a former employee of Ipsen and is now employed by Bristol Myers Squib. AP is an editor at the BMJ and is a senior research scientist at Stanford University, where she is responsible for advising and seeking funding on Delphi and other research studies. EJvZ and ZF have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews, including searches of databases, registers and other sources.. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N. Developing clinical guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ 2005;331:631–3. 10.1136/bmj.331.7517.631 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Djulbegovic B, Guyatt G. Evidence vs consensus in clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2019;322:725–6. 10.1001/jama.2019.9751 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. . Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000217. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage Sci 1963;9:458–67. 10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 - DOI
    1. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. . Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical Guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1–88. 10.3310/hta2030 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources