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
Review
. 2023 Oct 6;10(1):101.
doi: 10.1186/s40634-023-00664-2.

ESSKA consensus initiative: why, when and how?

Philippe Beaufils  1 , David Dejour  2 , Giuseppe Filardo  3 , Joan Carles Monllau  4   5   6 , Jacques Menetrey  7   8 , Romain Seil  9 , Roland Becker  10
Affiliations
Review

ESSKA consensus initiative: why, when and how?

Philippe Beaufils et al. J Exp Orthop. .

Abstract

The goal of a Consensus in clinical practice is to provide daily practitioners with evidence- based recommendations on data from the literature, clinical expertise and expectations of professionals and patients. In this context, a consensus aligns with the principles of evidence-based medicine in clinical practice and is consequently regarded as a scientific work of a certain level of evidence (LOE). It is expected that such a project may contribute to filling the gap observed between scientific evidence and reality of the daily practice.A Clinical Consensus is particularly needed for those topics that are of interest to daily practice but controversial due to lack of evidence, and for which expert agreement can provide valuable support in reaching conclusions.A Consensus requires a strict methodology, based on two principles: an iterative process with independence of the involved groups and pluralism (geographical and professional representation). These processes guarantee the scientific quality of the recommendations.Among the various consensus modalities, ESSKA has adopted the Formal Consensus derived from the Delphi method, and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. These two methods are complementary. The first one, based on questions-answers sets, is particularly suitable for questions of terminology, diagnosis, planning, strategy. The second one is based on the concept of scenarios, particularly adapted to treatment indications. These two methods can also be used within the same consensus.The aim of this article is to define what is a consensus initiative, to detail the methodology ESSKA has chosen, and to point out the key role of the dissemination.

Keywords: Consensus; Delphi method; Formal Consensus; Guidelines; RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Philippe Beaufils: ESSKA consensus projects advisor, Roland Becker: n.a., David Dejour: n.a., Giuseppe Filardo n.a., Jacques Menetrey: n.a., Joan Carles Monllau: n.a.,Romain Seil: n.a.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Evidence based medicine pyramid showing clinical practice guidelines as level 1. Reprint from Forrest J and Miller S [9]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Algorithm of the ESSKA formal consensus process
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Example of Rand scenarios (ACL Revision ESSKA consensus). Clinical scenarios for the age range 18–35. Reprint from Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part III-indications for different clinical scenarios using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method [22]. M: Median value, DIS: Disagreement, A: Appropriate, U: Uncertain, I: Inappropriate, + : Without disagreement, -: With disagreement, Green: Appropriate scenarios, Yellow: Uncertain scenarios, Red: inappropriate scenarios
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Graphic representation of the overall RAM consensus results on the appropriateness of ACLRevision in adults. Reprint from Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part III-indications for different clinical scenarios using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method [22]. Green: Appropriate; Yellow: Uncertain; Red: Inappropriate, INST: instability symptoms
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abram SGF, Beard DJ, Price AJ, BASK Meniscal Working Group Arthroscopic meniscal surgery: a national society treatment guideline and consensus statement. Bone Joint J. 2019;101:B:652–659. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B6.BJJ-2019-0126.R1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beaufils P, Becker R, Kopf S, Englund M, Verdonk R, Ollivier M, Seil R. Surgical management of degenerative meniscus lesions: the 2016 ESSKA meniscus consensus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25:335–346. doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4407-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bourrée F, Michel P, Salmi LR. Méthodes de consensus : revue des méthodes originales et de leurs grandes variantes utilisées en santé publique. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2008;56:415–423. doi: 10.1016/j.respe.2008.09.006. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dalkey NC. (1969) The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica: RAND corporation https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM588.... Accessed 12 Nov 2020
    1. Delbecq AL, van de Ven AH. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci. 1971;7:466–492. doi: 10.1177/002188637100700404. - DOI