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.

Diverticular Disease in the Primary Care Setting.

Diverticular disease is a chronic and common condition, and yet the impact of diverticular disease in primary care is largely unknown. The diagnosis of diverticular disease relies on the demonstration of diverticula in the colon, and the necessary investigations are often not available in primary care. The specificity and sensitivity of symptoms, clinical signs and laboratory tests alone are generally low and consequently the diagnostic process will be characterized by uncertainty. Also, the criteria for symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease in the absence of macroscopic inflammation are not clearly defined. Therefore both the prevalence of diverticular disease and the incidence of diverticulitis in primary care are unknown. Current recommendations for treatment and follow-up of patients with acute diverticulitis are based on studies where the diagnosis has been verified by computerized tomography. The results cannot be directly transferred to primary care where the diagnosis has to rely on the interpretation of symptoms and signs. Therefore, one must allow for greater diagnostic uncertainty, and safety netting in the event of unexpected development of the condition is an important aspect of the management of diverticulitis in primary care. The highest prevalence of diverticular disease is found among older patients, where multimorbidity and polypharmacy is common. The challenge is to remember the possible contribution of diverticular disease to the patient's overall condition and to foresee its implications in terms of advice and treatment in relation to other diseases.

Knowledge gaps in the management of refractory reflux-like symptoms: Healthcare provider survey.

BACKGROUND: Refractory reflux-like symptoms have a substantial impact on patients and healthcare providers. The aim of the survey was to qualitatively assess the needs and attitudes of practicing clinicians around the management of refractory reflux symptoms and refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (rGERD). METHODS: An International Working Group for the Classification of Oesophagitis (IWGCO) steering committee invited clinicians to complete an online survey including 17 questions. KEY RESULTS: Of the 113 clinicians who completed the survey, 70% were GIs, 20% were primary care physicians, and 10% were other specialties. Functional heartburn was considered the most common reason for an incomplete response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (82%), followed by stress/anxiety (69%). More GIs identified esophageal hypersensitivity as a cause, while more non-GIs identified esophageal dysmotility and non-reflux-related esophageal conditions. As the first step, most clinicians would order investigations (70-88%). Overall, 72% would add supplemental therapy for patients with partial response, but only 58% for those with non-response. Antacid/alginate was the most common choice overall, while non-GIs were more likely to add a prokinetic than were GIs (47.8 vs. 24.1%). Approximately 40% of clinicians would switch PPIs in patients with partial response, but only 29% would do so in non-responders. Preferences for long-term therapy were highly variable. The most common initial investigation was upper endoscopy. Choice of esophageal manometry and pH monitoring was more variable, with no clear preference for whether pH monitoring should be conducted on, or off, PPI therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The survey identified a number of challenges for clinicians, especially non-GI physicians, treating patients with refractory reflux-like symptoms or rGERD on a daily basis.

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.