A Systematic Scoping Review of Essential Methodological Elements for Developing a Tool to Improve the Reporting of Consensus Studies in Classification, Diagnostic Criteria, and Guidelines Development.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-12-08 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S484715
Yimy F Medina, Cindy V Mendieta, Natalia Prieto, María Laura Acosta Felquer, Enrique R Soriano
{"title":"A Systematic Scoping Review of Essential Methodological Elements for Developing a Tool to Improve the Reporting of Consensus Studies in Classification, Diagnostic Criteria, and Guidelines Development.","authors":"Yimy F Medina, Cindy V Mendieta, Natalia Prieto, María Laura Acosta Felquer, Enrique R Soriano","doi":"10.2147/JMDH.S484715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A consensus is a general agreement among group members that is pivotal in gathering expert input for classification, diagnostic criteria, and guideline development. However, the absence of established methodological standards presents challenges in conducting and analyzing these studies.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review explored the evidence on essential elements in consensus studies to create a list of candidate items for a standardized reporting tool. This tool is intended to improve the critical appraisal and methodological rigor of consensus studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic scoping review was conducted using predetermined criteria for study selecting studies and extracting data. A comprehensive literature search was performed without imposing date restrictions, covering multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, and up to March 2022. We included only English-language publications and excluded incomplete articles and conference reports. The risk of bias was assessed using the CASP checklist, and the study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers in duplicate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 8360 references; 20 publications were included for data extraction. The majority (70%) used the Delphi method, and the remainder (30%) employed the modified Delphi method. Inconsistencies in reporting conflicts of interest and consensus timing were observed. Other methodologies, such as RAND/UCLA and Nominal Group Technique were excluded due to methodological limitations. Most studies exhibited a low risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings underscored the need for more standardization in definitions, methodology, and reporting within consensus studies. To address these gaps, we developed a checklist of key reporting items aimed at improving the planning, execution, and reporting consensus studies. Although the developed checklist requires validation, it offers a practical framework to enhance methodological transparency and reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Deficiencies and variability in consensus methodologies reporting underscore the need for a standardized approach. We propose the adoption of a checklist to strengthen the robustness of consensus studies, supporting advances in classification, diagnostic criteria, and guideline development.</p>","PeriodicalId":16357,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","volume":"17 ","pages":"5813-5830"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636244/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S484715","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: A consensus is a general agreement among group members that is pivotal in gathering expert input for classification, diagnostic criteria, and guideline development. However, the absence of established methodological standards presents challenges in conducting and analyzing these studies.

Objective: This scoping review explored the evidence on essential elements in consensus studies to create a list of candidate items for a standardized reporting tool. This tool is intended to improve the critical appraisal and methodological rigor of consensus studies.

Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted using predetermined criteria for study selecting studies and extracting data. A comprehensive literature search was performed without imposing date restrictions, covering multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, and up to March 2022. We included only English-language publications and excluded incomplete articles and conference reports. The risk of bias was assessed using the CASP checklist, and the study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers in duplicate.

Results: We identified 8360 references; 20 publications were included for data extraction. The majority (70%) used the Delphi method, and the remainder (30%) employed the modified Delphi method. Inconsistencies in reporting conflicts of interest and consensus timing were observed. Other methodologies, such as RAND/UCLA and Nominal Group Technique were excluded due to methodological limitations. Most studies exhibited a low risk of bias.

Discussion: Our findings underscored the need for more standardization in definitions, methodology, and reporting within consensus studies. To address these gaps, we developed a checklist of key reporting items aimed at improving the planning, execution, and reporting consensus studies. Although the developed checklist requires validation, it offers a practical framework to enhance methodological transparency and reliability.

Conclusion: Deficiencies and variability in consensus methodologies reporting underscore the need for a standardized approach. We propose the adoption of a checklist to strengthen the robustness of consensus studies, supporting advances in classification, diagnostic criteria, and guideline development.

对开发一种工具以改进分类、诊断标准和指南制定共识研究报告的基本方法学要素的系统范围评价。
简介:共识是小组成员之间的一般协议,在收集分类、诊断标准和指南制定的专家意见时至关重要。然而,缺乏既定的方法标准对进行和分析这些研究提出了挑战。目的:本范围审查探讨了共识研究中基本要素的证据,以创建标准化报告工具的候选项目列表。该工具旨在提高共识研究的批判性评价和方法严谨性。方法:采用预先确定的研究标准进行系统的范围评价,选择研究和提取数据。在没有日期限制的情况下进行了全面的文献检索,涵盖多个数据库,包括Medline、Embase、LILACS、SciELO,检索时间截止到2022年3月。我们只纳入了英文出版物,排除了不完整的文章和会议报告。使用CASP检查表评估偏倚风险,研究选择和数据提取由两名研究者独立进行,一式两份。结果:共检索文献8360篇;20份出版物被纳入数据提取。大多数(70%)采用德尔菲法,其余(30%)采用改进的德尔菲法。在报告利益冲突和达成共识的时间方面观察到不一致。由于方法上的限制,RAND/UCLA和Nominal Group Technique等其他方法被排除在外。大多数研究显示偏倚风险较低。讨论:我们的研究结果强调了在共识研究中定义、方法和报告方面更加标准化的必要性。为了解决这些差距,我们开发了一个关键报告项目的清单,旨在改进计划、执行和报告共识研究。虽然开发的检查表需要验证,但它提供了一个实用的框架来增强方法的透明度和可靠性。结论:共识方法报告的缺陷和可变性强调了标准化方法的必要性。我们建议采用清单来加强共识研究的稳健性,支持分类、诊断标准和指南制定方面的进展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
287
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (JMDH) aims to represent and publish research in healthcare areas delivered by practitioners of different disciplines. This includes studies and reviews conducted by multidisciplinary teams as well as research which evaluates or reports the results or conduct of such teams or healthcare processes in general. The journal covers a very wide range of areas and we welcome submissions from practitioners at all levels and from all over the world. Good healthcare is not bounded by person, place or time and the journal aims to reflect this. The JMDH is published as an open-access journal to allow this wide range of practical, patient relevant research to be immediately available to practitioners who can access and use it immediately upon publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信