Paul Blazey, Alex Scott, Clare L Ardern, Jennifer C Davis, Jackie L Whittaker, Justin M Losciale, Karim M Khan
{"title":"Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review.","authors":"Paul Blazey, Alex Scott, Clare L Ardern, Jennifer C Davis, Jackie L Whittaker, Justin M Losciale, Karim M Khan","doi":"10.1136/bjsports-2023-107552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":9276,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11228197/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2023-107552","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development.
Design: Scoping review.
Data sources: We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping.
Eligibility criteria: All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered.
Results: Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps.
Conclusions: PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.
期刊介绍：
The British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) is a dynamic platform that presents groundbreaking research, thought-provoking reviews, and meaningful discussions on sport and exercise medicine. Our focus encompasses various clinically-relevant aspects such as physiotherapy, physical therapy, and rehabilitation. With an aim to foster innovation, education, and knowledge translation, we strive to bridge the gap between research and practical implementation in the field. Our multi-media approach, including web, print, video, and audio resources, along with our active presence on social media, connects a global community of healthcare professionals dedicated to treating active individuals.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
