A few panel members dominated guideline development meeting discussions: Social network analysis

Guideline panel social dynamics influence the development of clinical practice recommendations: a mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize empirical studies that investigate the cognitive and social processes involved in the deliberation process of guideline development meetings and determine the distribution of deliberated topics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a mixed-method systematic review using a convergent segregated approach. We searched for empirical studies that investigate the intragroup dynamics of guideline development meetings indexed in bibliographic databases.

RESULTS

Of the 5,899 citations screened, 12 studies from six countries proved eligible. Chairs, cochairs, and methodologists contributed to at least one-third of the discussion time in guideline development meetings; patient partners contributed the least. In interdisciplinary groups, male gender and occupation as a physician were positively associated with the amount of contribution. Compared to groups that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, for groups that did not, when faced with insufficient or low-quality evidence, relied more on their clinical experience. The presence of a cognitive "yes" bias was apparent in meetings: panelists tended to acquiesce with positive statements that required less cognitive effort than negative statements.

CONCLUSION

The social dynamics of the discussions were linked to each panelist's activity role, professional background, and gender, all of which influenced the level of contributions they made in guideline development meetings.

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines in Kenya using the AGREE II tool: a methodological review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of available and accessible national Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in Kenya using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool.

METHODS

We searched the websites of the Kenyan Ministry of Health, professional associations and contacted experts in relevant organisations. Our scope was guidelines on maternal, neonatal, nutritional disorders, injuries, communicable and non-communicable diseases in Kenya published in the last 5 years until 30 June 2022. Study selection and data extraction were done by three independent reviewers with disagreements resolved via discussion or with a senior reviewer. We conducted a quality assessment using the online English version of AGREE II tool across six domains. Descriptive statistics were analysed using Stata software V.17. The primary outcome was the methodological quality of the included CPGs assessed by the AGREE II tool score.

RESULTS

We retrieved 95 CPGs and included 24 in the analysis after screening for eligibility. The CPGs scored best in clarity of presentation and least in the rigour of development. In descending order, the appraisal scores (mean and CI) per domain were as follows: Clarity of presentation 82.96% (95% CI 78.35% to 87.57%) with all guidelines scoring above 50%. Scope and purpose 61.75% (95% CI 54.19% to 69.31%) with seven guidelines scoring less than 50%. Stakeholder involvement 45.25% (95% CI 40.01% to 50.49%) with 16 CPGs scoring less than 50%. Applicability domain 19.88% (95% CI 13.32% to 26.43%) with only one CPG scoring above 50%. Editorial independence 6.92% (95% CI 3.47% to 10.37%) with no CPG scoring above 50% and rigour of development 3% (95% CI 0.61% to 5.39%) with no CPG scoring at least 50%.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the quality of CPGs in Kenya is limited mainly by the rigour of development, editorial independence, applicability and stakeholder involvement. Training initiatives on evidence-based methodology among guideline developers are needed to improve the overall quality of CPGs for better patient care.

Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 1-definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Primary cam morphology is a mostly benign bony prominence that develops at the femoral head-neck junction of the hip, but it is highly prevalent in many athlete populations. In the small proportion of athletes for whom it is not benign, the resulting hip osteoarthritis can be debilitating. Clinicians, athletes, patients and researchers do not yet agree on important primary cam morphology elements. We aimed to ascertain and improve the level of agreement on primary cam morphology definitions, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome measures.

METHODS

To collect and aggregate informed opinions, an expert panel-the Young Athlete's Hip Research Collaborative-rated primary cam morphology definition, terminology, taxonomy and imaging outcome statements through an online Delphi exercise followed by an online meeting to explore areas of tension and dissent. Reporting followed Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies.

RESULTS

A diverse and inclusive Delphi panel (n=65 for rounds 1 and 2, representing 18 countries; 6 stakeholder groups; 40% women) agreed on 35 of 47 statements in 4 domains, while surfacing areas of tension and dissent. This Delphi panel agreed on four key issues essential to moving research and clinical care forward around primary cam morphology. They agreed on: (1) definition, confirming its conceptual attributes (tissue type, size, location, shape and ownership); (2) terminology-use 'morphology' and not terms with a negative connotation like 'lesion', 'abnormality' or 'deformity'; (3) taxonomy, distinguishing between primary and secondary cam morphology, and (4) imaging outcomes, a continuous bone/cartilage alpha angle on radial femoral head-neck MRI for primary cam morphology aetiology research.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides athletes, patients, clinicians and researchers with a strong foundation to guide more precise communication, better clinical decision-making and higher value research about primary cam morphology and its natural history.

OPTIKNEE 2022: consensus recommendations to optimise knee health after traumatic knee injury to prevent osteoarthritis

The goal of the OPTIKNEE consensus is to improve knee and overall health, to prevent osteoarthritis (OA) after a traumatic knee injury. The consensus followed a seven-step hybrid process. Expert groups conducted 7 systematic reviews to synthesise the current evidence and inform recommendations on the burden of knee injuries; risk factors for post-traumatic knee OA; rehabilitation to prevent post-traumatic knee OA; and patient-reported outcomes, muscle function and functional performance tests to monitor people at risk of post-traumatic knee OA. Draft consensus definitions, and clinical and research recommendations were generated, iteratively refined, and discussed at 6, tri-weekly, 2-hour videoconferencing meetings. After each meeting, items were finalised before the expert group (n=36) rated the level of appropriateness for each using a 9-point Likert scale, and recorded dissenting viewpoints through an anonymous online survey. Seven definitions, and 8 clinical recommendations (who to target, what to target and when, rehabilitation approach and interventions, what outcomes to monitor and how) and 6 research recommendations (research priorities, study design considerations, what outcomes to monitor and how) were voted on. All definitions and recommendations were rated appropriate (median appropriateness scores of 7–9) except for two subcomponents of one clinical recommendation, which were rated uncertain (median appropriateness score of 4.5–5.5). Varying levels of evidence supported each recommendation. Clinicians, patients, researchers and other stakeholders may use the definitions and recommendations to advocate for, guide, develop, test and implement person-centred evidence-based rehabilitation programmes following traumatic knee injury, and facilitate data synthesis to reduce the burden of knee post-traumatic knee OA.

ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus - for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected - can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner.

METHODS

The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice.

DISCUSSION

The ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.