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

Developing an international consensus Reporting guideline for intervention Fidelity in Non-Drug, non-surgical trials: The ReFiND protocol

BACKGROUND

Inadequate reporting of fidelity to interventions in trials limits the transparency and interpretation of trial findings. Despite this, most trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions lack comprehensive reporting of fidelity. If fidelity is poorly reported, it is unclear which intervention components were tested or implemented within the trial, which also hinders research reproducibility. This protocol describes the development process of a reporting guideline for fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions (ReFiND) in the context of trials.

METHODS

The ReFiND guideline will be developed in six stages. Stage one: a guideline development group has been formed to oversee the guideline methodology. Stage two: a scoping review will be conducted to identify and summarize existing guidance documents on the fidelity of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. Stage three: a Delphi study will be conducted to reach consensus on reporting items. Stage four: a consensus meeting will be held to consolidate the reporting items and discuss the wording and structure of the guideline. Stage five: a guidance statement, an elaboration and explanation document, and a reporting checklist will be developed. Stage six: different strategies will be used to disseminate and implement the ReFiND guideline.

DISCUSSION

The ReFiND guideline will provide a set of items developed through international consensus to improve the reporting of intervention fidelity in trials of non-drug, non-surgical interventions. This reporting guideline will enhance transparency and reproducibility in future non-drug, non-surgical intervention research.

Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review

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.

Delphi Consensus on Diagnostic Criteria for LUMBAR Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To develop consensus on diagnostic criteria for LUMBAR syndrome, the association of segmental infantile hemangiomas that affect the Lower body with Urogenital anomalies, Ulceration, spinal cord Malformations, Bony defects, Anorectal malformations, Arterial anomalies and/or Renal anomalies.

STUDY DESIGN

These diagnostic criteria were developed by an expert multidisciplinary and multi-institutional team based on analysis of peer-reviewed data, followed by electronic-Delphi consensus of a panel of 61 international pediatric specialists.

RESULTS

After two Delphi rounds, a 92% or higher level of agreement was reached for each Delphi statement. 98% of panelists agreed with the diagnostic criteria, and 100% agreed the criteria would be useful in clinical practice. The diagnosis of LUMBAR requires the presence of a segmental, or patterned, infantile hemangioma of the lumbosacral, sacrococcygeal, or pelvic cutaneous regions plus one additional criterion of the urogenital, spinal, bony, anorectal, arterial, or renal organ systems.

CONCLUSIONS

These diagnostic criteria will enhance clinical care by improving screening, detection, and overall awareness of this poorly understood neurocutaneous disorder. The criteria can be utilized by a wide variety of pediatric subspecialists. In addition, formal criteria will improve phenotypic uniformity among LUMBAR syndrome cohorts and a patient registry, allowing investigators to assess clinical features, long-term outcomes, and results of genetic sequencing in a standardized manner. Finally, these criteria will serve as a starting point for prospective studies to establish formal screening and management guidelines.

ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods

BACKGROUND

When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus among interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables, and figures.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCORD materials-including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document-can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

Ernica Clinical Consensus Statements on Total Colonic and Intestinal Aganglionosis

BACKGROUND

Hirschsprung disease is a congenital intestinal motility disorder characterized by an absence of enteric ganglion cells. Total colonic aganglionosis and near total or total intestinal aganglionosis, defined as absence of ganglion cells in the entire colon and with variable length of small bowel involved, are life-threatening conditions which affect less than 10 % of all patients with Hirschsprung disease. The aim of this project was to develop clinical consensus statements within ERNICA, the European Reference Network for rare congenital digestive diseases, on four major topics: Surgical treatment of total colonic aganglionosis, surgical treatment of total intestinal aganglionosis, management of poor bowel function in total colonic and/or intestinal aganglionosis and long-term management in total colonic and or intestinal aganglionosis.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of representatives from ERNICA centers was invited to participate. Literature was searched, using specified search terms, in Medline (ALL), Embase and Google Scholar. Abstracts were screened and full text publications were selected. The panel was divided in four groups that extracted data from the full text publications and suggested draft statements for each of the major topics. A modified Delphi process was used to refine and agree on the statements.

RESULTS

The consensus statement was conducted by a multidisciplinary panel of 24 participants from 10 European countries, 45 statements reached consensus after 3 Delphi-rounds. The availability of high-quality clinical evidence was limited, and most statements were based on expert opinion. Another 25 statements did not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Total colonic and total intestinal aganglionosis are rare variants of Hirschsprung disease, with very limited availability of high-quality clinical evidence. This consensus statement provides statements on the surgical treatment, management of poor bowel function and long-term management for these rare patients. The expert panel agreed that patients benefit from multidisciplinary and personalized care, preferably in an expert center.

TYPE OF STUDY

Clinical consensus statement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3a.

Performance of ChatGPT Compared to Clinical Practice Guidelines in Making Informed Decisions for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Cross-sectional Study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence chatbot to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for providing answers to complex clinical questions on lumbosacral radicular pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We extracted recommendations from recent CPGs for diagnosing and treating lumbosacral radicular pain. Relative clinical questions were developed and queried to OpenAI's ChatGPT (GPT-3.5). We compared ChatGPT answers to CPGs recommendations by assessing the (1) internal consistency of ChatGPT answers by measuring the percentage of text wording similarity when a clinical question was posed 3 times, (2) reliability between 2 independent reviewers in grading ChatGPT answers, and (3) accuracy of ChatGPT answers compared to CPGs recommendations. Reliability was estimated using Fleiss' kappa (κ) coefficients, and accuracy by interobserver agreement as the frequency of the agreements among all judgments. RESULTS: We tested 9 clinical questions. The internal consistency of text ChatGPT answers was unacceptable across all 3 trials in all clinical questions (mean percentage of 49%, standard deviation of 15). Intrareliability (reviewer 1: κ = 0.90, standard error [SE] = 0.09; reviewer 2: κ = 0.90, SE = 0.10) and interreliability (κ = 0.85, SE = 0.15) between the 2 reviewers was "almost perfect." Accuracy between ChatGPT answers and CPGs recommendations was slight, demonstrating agreement in 33% of recommendations. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT performed poorly in internal consistency and accuracy of the indications generated compared to clinical practice guideline recommendations for lumbosacral radicular pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(3):1-7. Epub 29 January 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12151.

Management of swallowing disorders in ICU patients - A multinational expert opinion

BACKGROUND

Dysphagia is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, yet it remains underrecognized and often unmanaged despite being associated with life-threatening complications, prolonged ICU stays and hospitalization.

PURPOSE

To propose an expert opinion for the diagnosis and management of dysphagia developed from evidence-based clinical recommendations and practitioner insights.

METHODS

A multinational group of dysphagia and critical care experts conducted a literature review using a modified ACCORD methodology. Based on a fusion of the available evidence and the panel's clinical experience, an expert opinion on best practice management was developed.

RESULTS

The panel recommends adopting clinical algorithms intended to promote standardized, high-quality care that triggers timely systematic dysphagia screening, assessment, and treatment of extubated and tracheostomized patients in the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lack of robust scientific evidence, two clinical management algorithms are proposed for use by multidisciplinary teams to improve early systematic detection and effective management of dysphagia in ICU patients. Additionally, emerging therapeutic options such as neurostimulation have the potential to improve the quality of ICU dysphagia care.

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

Continuity Strategies for Long-Stay PICU Patients: Consensus Statements From the Lucile Packard Foundation PICU Continuity Panel

OBJECTIVES

To develop consensus statements on continuity strategies using primary intensivists, primary nurses, and recurring multidisciplinary team meetings for long-stay patients (LSPs) in PICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

The multidisciplinary Lucile Packard Foundation PICU Continuity Panel comprising parents of children who had prolonged PICU stays and experts in several specialties/professions that care for children with medical complexity in and out of PICUs.

DESIGN/METHODS

We used modified RAND Delphi methodology, with a comprehensive literature review, Delphi surveys, and a conference, to reach consensus. The literature review resulted in a synthesized bibliography, which was provided to panelists. We used an iterative process to generate draft statements following panelists' completion of four online surveys with open-ended questions on implementing and sustaining continuity strategies. Panelists were anonymous when they voted on revised draft statements. Agreement of 80% constituted consensus. At a 3-day virtual conference, we discussed, revised, and re-voted on statements not reaching or barely reaching consensus. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the quality of the evidence and rate the statements' strength. The Panel also generated outcome, process, and balancing metrics to evaluate continuity strategies.

RESULTS

The Panel endorsed 17 consensus statements in five focus areas of continuity strategies (Eligibility Criteria, Initiation, Standard Responsibilities, Resources Needed to Implement, Resources Needed to Sustain). The quality of evidence of the statements was low to very low, highlighting the limited evidence and the importance of panelists' experiences/expertise. The strength of the statements was conditional. An extensive list of potential evaluation metrics was generated.

CONCLUSIONS

These expert/parent-developed consensus statements provide PICUs with novel summaries on how to operationalize, implement, and sustain continuity strategies for LSP, a rapidly growing, vulnerable, resource-intensive population in PICUs.

International consensus recommendations for the identification and treatment of tuberous sclerosis complex-associated neuropsychiatric disorders (TAND)

BACKGROUND

Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is associated with a wide range of physical manifestations for which international clinical recommendations for diagnosis and management have been established. TSC is, however, also associated with a wide range of TSC-Associated Neuropsychiatric Disorders (TAND) that are typically under-identified and under-treated yet associated with a profound burden of disease. The contemporary evidence base for the identification and treatment of TAND is much more limited and, to date, consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of TAND have also been limited and non-specific.

METHODS

The TANDem project was launched with an international, interdisciplinary, and participatory consortium of 24 individuals, including TSC family representatives, from all World Health Organization (WHO) regions but one. One of the aims of the TANDem project was to generate consensus recommendations for the identification and treatment of TAND. At the time of this project, no internationally adopted standard methodology and methodological checklists existed for the generation of clinical practice recommendations. We therefore developed our own systematic procedure for evidence review and consensus-building to generate evidence-informed consensus recommendations of relevance to the global TSC community.

RESULTS

At the heart of the consensus recommendations are ten core principles surrounded by cluster-specific recommendations for each of the seven natural TAND clusters identified in the literature (autism-like, dysregulated behavior, eat/sleep, mood/anxiety, neuropsychological, overactive/impulsive, and scholastic) and a set of wraparound psychosocial cluster recommendations. The overarching recommendation is to "screen" for TAND at least annually, to "act" using appropriate next steps for evaluation and treatment, and to "repeat" the process to ensure early identification and early intervention with the most appropriate biological, psychological, and social evidence-informed approaches to support individuals with TSC and their families.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus recommendations should provide a systematic framework to approach the identification and treatment of TAND for health, educational, social care teams and families who live with TSC. To ensure global dissemination and implementation of these recommendations, partnerships with the international TSC community will be important. One of these steps will include the generation of a "TAND toolkit" of "what to seek" and "what to do" when difficulties are identified in TAND clusters.

Development of the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) guideline

BACKGROUND

Observational studies are increasingly used to inform health decision-making when randomised trials are not feasible, ethical or timely. The target trial approach provides a framework to help minimise common biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions. Incomplete reporting of studies using the target trial framework limits the ability for clinicians, researchers, patients and other decision-makers to appraise, synthesise and interpret findings to inform clinical and public health practice and policy. This paper describes the methods that we will use to develop the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) reporting guideline.

METHODS/DESIGN

The TARGET reporting guideline will be developed in five stages following recommended guidance. The first stage will identify target trial reporting practices by systematically reviewing published studies that explicitly emulated a target trial. The second stage will identify and refine items to be considered for inclusion in the TARGET guideline by consulting content experts using sequential online surveys. The third stage will prioritise and consolidate key items to be included in the TARGET guideline at an in-person consensus meeting of TARGET investigators. The fourth stage will produce and pilot-test both the TARGET guideline and explanation and elaboration document with relevant stakeholders. The fifth stage will disseminate the TARGET guideline and resources via journals, conferences and courses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the survey has been attained (HC220536). The TARGET guideline will be disseminated widely in partnership with stakeholders to maximise adoption and improve reporting of these studies.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome

AIM

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future.

METHOD

A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.

RESULTS

Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Educator's blueprint: A primer on consensus methods in medical education research

Consensus methods such as the Delphi and nominal group techniques are increasingly utilized within medical education research. This educator's blueprint paper provides practical strategies regarding five key steps for ensuring best practices when using consensus methods. These strategies include deciding which consensus method is best, developing the initial questionnaire, identifying the participants, determining the number of rounds and consensus threshold, and describing and justifying any modifications. These strategies will help guide education researchers on their next study using consensus methods.

Participatory development of a framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in conducting a systematic review: the DECIDE-SR protocol

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate relevant studies to contribute to evidence-based practice. Internationally, researchers have reached a consensus that the active involvement of the public leads to better research. Despite this agreement, there are many reviews of research concerning healthcare interventions intended to promote the care of people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., close contacts, both family and non-family members) primarily involve only healthcare professionals and other experts. Due to the lack of a dementia-sensitive framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals as co-researchers in systematic reviews, it is important to develop a framework to inform practice.

METHODS

For this framework development process, we will recruit four people living with dementia and a total of four people from their social network, and three healthcare professionals working in acute or long-term care settings. We will conduct regular meetings with these groups of the public and healthcare professionals to include them in all stages of the systematic review. We will also identify and develop methods necessary to ensure meaningful involvement. The results will be documented and analyzed for the development of a framework. For the planning and preparation for these meetings, as well as the conduct of the meetings themselves, we will be guided by the principles of the INVOLVE approach. In addition, the ACTIVE framework will be used to guide the degree of involvement and the stage in the review process.

DISCUSSION

We assume that our transparent approach to the development of a framework to support the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews will serve as an impetus for and provide guidance to other researchers with the goal of increasing researchers' focus on this topic and facilitating systematic reviews that apply participatory approaches.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registration is unnecessary as no intervention study will be conducted.

An international consensus definition for contextual factors: findings from a nominal group technique

Objective

Emerging literature suggests contextual factors are important components of therapeutic encounters and may substantially influence clinical outcomes of a treatment intervention. At present, a single consensus definition of contextual factors, which is universal across all health-related conditions is lacking. The objective of this study was to create a consensus definition of contextual factors to better refine this concept for clinicians and researchers.

Design

The study used a multi-stage virtual Nominal Group Technique (vNGT) to create and rank contextual factor definitions. Nominal group techniques are a form of consensus-based research, and are beneficial for identifying problems, exploring solutions and establishing priorities.

Setting

International.

Main outcome measures

The initial stages of the vNGT resulted in the creation of 14 independent contextual factor definitions. After a prolonged discussion period, the initial definitions were heavily modified, and 12 final definitions were rank ordered by the vNGT participants from first to last.

Participants

The 10 international vNGT participants had a variety of clinical backgrounds and research specializations and were all specialists in contextual factors research.

Results

A sixth round was used to identify a final consensus, which reflected the complexity of contextual factors and included three primary domains: (1) an overall definition; (2) qualifiers that serve as examples of the key areas of the definition; and (3) how contextual factors may influence clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

Our consensus definition of contextual factors seeks to improve the understanding and communication between clinicians and researchers. These are especially important in recognizing their potential role in moderating and/or mediating clinical outcomes.

First Ecuadorian statement consensus for the evaluation and treatment of osteoporosis

Osteoporosis management has become more relevant as the life expectancy increases. In Ecuador, approximately 19% of adults over 65 years of age have been diagnosed with osteoporosis. There is no national consensus for the management and prevention of the disease being this proposal the first Ecuadorian consensus.

INTRODUCTION

In Ecuador, it is estimated that around 19% of adults over 65 years of age have osteoporosis. Due to the increase in life expectancy in the world population, the evaluation and management of osteoporosis has become more relevant. Currently, there is no national consensus for the management and prevention of the disease. The Ecuadorian Society of Rheumatology presented the project for the elaboration of the first Ecuadorian consensus for the management and prevention of osteoporosis.

METHODS

A panel of experts in multiple areas and extensive experience was invited to participate. The consensus was carried out using the Delphi method. Six working dimensions were created: definition and epidemiology of osteoporosis, fracture risk prediction tools, non-pharmacological treatment, pharmacological treatment, calcium and vitamin D, and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

RESULTS

The first round was held in December 2021, followed by the second round in February 2022 and the third round in March 2022. The data was shared with the specialists at the end of each round. After three rounds of work, a consensus was reached for the management and prevention of osteoporosis.

CONCLUSION

This is the first Ecuadorian consensus for the management and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Expert consensus statement on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO for COVID-19 severe ARDS: an international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

The high-quality evidence on managing COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is insufficient. Furthermore, there is little consensus on allocating ECMO resources when scarce. The paucity of evidence and the need for guidance on controversial topics required an international expert consensus statement to understand the role of ECMO in COVID-19 better. Twenty-two international ECMO experts worldwide work together to interpret the most recent findings of the evolving published research, statement formulation, and voting to achieve consensus.

OBJECTIVES

To guide the next generation of ECMO practitioners during future pandemics on tackling controversial topics pertaining to using ECMO for patients with COVID-19-related severe ARDS.

METHODS

The scientific committee was assembled of five chairpersons with more than 5 years of ECMO experience and a critical care background. Their roles were modifying and restructuring the panel's questions and, assisting with statement formulation in addition to expert composition and literature review. Experts are identified based on their clinical experience with ECMO (minimum of 5 years) and previous academic activity on a global scale, with a focus on diversity in gender, geography, area of expertise, and level of seniority. We used the modified Delphi technique rounds and the nominal group technique (NGT) through three face-to-face meetings and the voting on the statement was conducted anonymously. The entire process was planned to be carried out in five phases: identifying the gap of knowledge, validation, statement formulation, voting, and drafting, respectively.

RESULTS

In phase I, the scientific committee obtained 52 questions on controversial topics in ECMO for COVID-19, further reviewed for duplication and redundancy in phase II, resulting in nine domains with 32 questions with a validation rate exceeding 75% (Fig. 1). In phase III, 25 questions were used to formulate 14 statements, and six questions achieved no consensus on the statements. In phase IV, two voting rounds resulted in 14 statements that reached a consensus are included in four domains which are: patient selection, ECMO clinical management, operational and logistics management, and ethics.

CONCLUSION

Three years after the onset of COVID-19, our understanding of the role of ECMO has evolved. However, it is incomplete. Tota14 statements achieved consensus; included in four domains discussing patient selection, clinical ECMO management, operational and logistic ECMO management and ethics to guide next-generation ECMO providers during future pandemic situations.

The standards of reporting randomized trials in pets (PetSORT): Methods and development processes

Background

Reporting of clinical trials conducted in client- and shelter-owned dog and cat populations is not optimal, which inhibits the ability to assess the reliability and validity of trial findings and precludes the ability to include some trials in evidence synthesis.

Objective

To develop a reporting guideline for parallel group and crossover trials that addresses the unique features and reporting requirements for trials conducted in client- and shelter-owned dog and cat populations.

Design

Consensus statement.

Setting

Virtual.

Participants

Fifty-six experts from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia working in academia, government (research and regulatory agencies), industry, and clinical veterinary practice.

Methods

A steering committee created a draft checklist for reporting criteria based upon the CONSORT statement and the CONSORT extensions for reporting of abstracts and crossover trials. Each item was presented to the expert participants and was modified and presented again until >85% of participants were in agreement about the inclusion and wording of each item in the checklist.

Results

The final PetSORT checklist consists of 25 main items with several sub-items. Most items were modifications of items contained in the CONSORT 2010 checklist or the CONSORT extension for crossover trials, but 1 sub-item pertaining to euthanasia was created de novo.

Conclusion

The methods and processes used to develop this guideline represent a novel departure from those used to create other reporting guidelines, by using a virtual format. The use of the PetSORT statement should improve reporting of trials conducted in client- and shelter-owned dogs and cats and published in the veterinary research literature.

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

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.