Developing reporting checklist items from systematic review findings: a roadmap and lessons to be learned from ACCORD.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how researchers can identify and translate reporting gaps from a systematic review into checklist items for reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Good quality research reporting ensures transparency, reproducibility, and utility, facilitated by reporting guidelines. Conducting a systematic review is an essential step in the development of these guidelines. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network's toolkit (2010) assists researchers in this process and is due for an update to address current gaps and evolving research methods. One significant gap is the translation of systematic review findings into checklist items. Reflecting on our experience developing the ACcurate Consensus Reporting Document, we illustrate this translation process aiming to empower researchers developing reporting guidelines to address potential biases and promote transparency. We highlight the challenges faced and how they were addressed. RESULTS: The systematic review search process was iterative, involving multiple adjustments to balance precision and sensitivity. Excessively stringent exclusion criteria may lead to missed valuable insights, especially when studies offer relevant content. An information specialist was invaluable in developing the search strategy. Key lessons learned include the necessity of maintaining flexibility and openness during data extraction, continuous adaptation based on panelist feedback, and promoting clear communication through understandable language. These principles can guide the development of future reporting guidelines and the updating of the EQUATOR toolkit, promoting transparency and robustness in research reporting. CONCLUSION: Maintaining flexibility, capturing evolving insights, clear communication, and accommodating changes in research and technologies are key to translating systematic review findings into effective reporting checklists.

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 amongst 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. 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.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP)-A systematic review of the methodological quality of contact dermatitis clinical practice guidelines.

The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include 'strength and wording of recommendations', 'applicability', 'updating' and 'external review'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.

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.

Frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints. METHODS: A total of 360 patients with intra- and perioral complaints suspected of having a contact allergy were patch-tested with the dental allergen series, European Baseline Series, and extended Amsterdam Baseline Series at Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (79.2%) had a positive patch test reaction for either one (18.6%) or multiple allergens (60.6%). Sodium tetrachloropalladate was the most sensitising allergen with 98 patients (27.2%) testing positive, followed by nickel sulphate (23.3%), methylisothiazolinone (15.6%), and fragrance mix I (14.2%). Clinical relevance was found in 68 of 208 patients (32.7%), with patients having one (15.4%) or multiple (17.3%) patch test reactions clinically relevant to their (peri)oral complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant patch test reactions were frequently seen in dental patients. Although this study provides us with a better understanding on the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients, further studies are needed to confirm our results.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Morbihan's Disease: A Practical Approach based on Review of the Literature.

Background: Morbihan's disease (MD), also known as solid persistent facial edema, solid facial lymphedema or rosacea lymphedema, is a rare condition. Objective: Despite existing case reports and literature reviews, clinical guidance for diagnosis and management is lacking. This review aims to provide comprehensive information on the etiology, differential diagnoses, diagnostics, and management of MD. Methods: PubMed was searched up to April 2023 for relevant studies on MD with no language restriction. Furthermore, references were checked of found reports. Results: A comprehensive overview of the literature and clinical guidance for MD. We found 95 studies involving 166 patients (118 male, 46 female and 2 gender unreported) evaluating management options, categorized into: isotretinoin (16 studies), isotretinoin plus antihistamines (8), isotretinoin plus corticosteroids (8), antibiotics (13), antibiotics plus corticosteroids (7), surgical debulking (10) and miscellaneous/combination treatments (43). Some studies contributed to two categories. Treatment with isotretinoin as monotherapy or combined with antihistamines, doxycycline or minocycline as well as surgical procedures demonstrated mostly satisfactory results, although recurrences were common. Longer treatment duration, of at least 6 to 12 months, is recommended for pharmacological treatments. Adding systemic or intralesional corticosteroids to previous treatments may be beneficial. Manual lymph drainage seems to contribute to satisfying result. Limitations: This is not a systematic review and randomized controlled trials are lacking. Conclusion: Diagnosis of MD is based on specific clinical features and excluding diseases with similar appearance. Prolonged treatment is often necessary to obtain satisfactory results, which might be limited to a partial and/or temporary response.

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.

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.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential in delivering optimum healthcare, such as for atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly prevalent skin disease. Although many CPGs are available for AD, their quality has not been critically appraised. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs on AD worldwide and to assess with validated instruments whether those CPGs are clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs on AD published between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2021. Additionally we hand searched prespecified guideline resources. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible guidelines were independently carried out by two authors. Instruments used for quality assessment were the AGREE II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness and Lenzer's Red Flags. RESULTS: Forty CPGs were included, mostly from countries with a high sociodemographic index. The reporting quality varied enormously. Three CPGs scored 'excellent' on all AGREE II domains and three scored 'poor' on all domains. We found no association between AGREE II scores and a country's gross domestic product. One CPG fully met all nine IOM criteria and two fully met eight. Three CPGs had no red flags. 'Applicability' and 'rigour of development' were the lowest scoring AGREE II domains; 'external review', 'updating procedures' and 'rating strength of recommendations' were the IOM criteria least met; and most red flags were for 'limited or no involvement of methodological expertise' and 'no external review'. Management of conflicts of interest (COIs) appeared challenging. When constructs of the instruments overlapped, they showed high concordance, strengthening our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, many CPGs are not sufficiently clear, unbiased, trustworthy or evidence based (CUTE) and lack applicability. Therefore improvement is warranted, for which using the AGREE II instrument is recommended. Some improvements can be easily accomplished through robust reporting. Others, such as transparency, applicability, evidence foundation and managing COIs, might require more effort.

Rosacea: New Concepts in Classification and Treatment.

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis mainly affecting the cheeks, nose, chin, and forehead. Rosacea is characterized by recurrent episodes of flushing or transient erythema, persistent erythema, phymatous changes, papules, pustules, and telangiectasia. The eyes may also be involved. Due to rosacea affecting the face, it has a profound negative impact on quality of life, self-esteem, and well-being. In addition to general skin care, there are several approved treatment options available for addressing these features, both topical and systemic. For some features, intense pulse light, laser, and surgery are of value. Recent advances in fundamental scientific research have underscored the roles of the innate and adaptive immune systems as well as neurovascular dysregulation underlying the spectrum of clinical features of rosacea. Endogenous and exogenous stimuli may initiate and aggravate several pathways in patients with rosacea. This review covers the new phenotype-based diagnosis and classification system reflecting pathophysiology, and new and emerging treatment options and approaches. We address new topical and systemic formulations, as well as recent evidence on treatment combinations. In addition, ongoing studies investigating novel therapeutic interventions will be summarized.

Consistency of Recommendations for Evaluation and Management of Hypertension.

Importance: Hypertension is very common, but guideline recommendations for hypertension have been controversial, are of increasing interest, and have profound implications. Objective: To systematically assess the consistency of recommendations regarding hypertension management across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of hypertension management recommendations included CPGs that had been published as of April 2018. Two point-of-care resources that provided graded recommendations were included for secondary analyses. Discrete and unambiguous specifications of the population, intervention, and comparison states were used to define a series of reference recommendations. Three raters reached consensus on coding the direction and strength of each recommendation made by each CPG. Three independent raters reached consensus on the importance of each reference recommendation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were rates of consistency for direction and strength among CPGs. Sensitivity analyses testing the robustness were conducted by excluding recommendation statements that were described as insufficient evidence, excluding single recommendation sources, and stratifying by importance of recommendations. Results: The analysis included 8 CPGs with a total of 71 reference recommendations, 68 of which had clear recommendations from 2 or more CPGs. Across CPGs, 22 recommendations (32%) were consistent in direction and strength, 18 recommendations (27%) were consistent in direction but inconsistent in strength, and 28 recommendations (41%) were inconsistent in direction. The rate of consistency was lower in secondary analyses. When insufficient evidence ratings were excluded, there was still substantial inconsistency, and a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis suggested the inconsistency could not be attributed to any single recommendation source. Inconsistency in direction was more common for recommendations deemed to be of lower importance (11 of 20 recommendations [55%]), but 17 of 48 high-importance recommendations (35%) had inconsistency in direction. Conclusions and Relevance: Hypertension is a common chronic condition with widespread expectations surrounding guideline-based care, yet CPGs have a high rate of inconsistency. Further investigations should determine the reasons for inconsistency, the implications for recommendation development, and the role of synthesis across recommendations for optimal guidance of clinical care.

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis.

BACKGROUND: Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 February 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 February 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 18 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 18 February 2019). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of included studies using GRADE. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: No additional trials could be included in this update. One trial at low risk of bias evaluating oral penicillin in combination with analgesics versus placebo with analgesics, involving 40 participants was included in a former update of the review. The certainty of the evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. Our primary outcome was patient-reported pain (intensity/duration) and pain relief. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention (median 6.0, interquartile range (IQR) 10.5), and for placebo (median 6.0, IQR 9.5) over the seven-day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.20 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.60 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.23 to 3.43; P = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.90 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI -1.23 to 6.13; P = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review which was based on one low-powered small sample trial assessed as at low risk of bias, illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotics reduce pain or not compared to not having antibiotics. The results of this review confirm the necessity for further larger sample and methodologically sound trials that can provide additional evidence as to whether antibiotics, prescribed in the preoperative phase, can affect treatment outcomes for irreversible pulpitis.