BackgroundWhen research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus among interested stakeholders. In these processes, the... Show moreBackgroundWhen 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 findingsThis 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.ConclusionsThe 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. Show less
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... Show moreThe 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. Show less
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,... Show moreBackground 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. Show less
BackgroundWhile many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce.ObjectivesTo... Show moreBackgroundWhile many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce.ObjectivesTo determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsClinically 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. Show less
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... Show moreObjective 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. Show less
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... Show moreBackground 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. Show less
BackgroundStructured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the... Show moreBackgroundStructured, 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.MethodsThe 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.DiscussionThe 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. Show less
Guelimi, R.; Metelli, S.; Sbidian, E.; Zuuren, E.J. van; Flohr, C.; Leonardi-Bee, J.; Cleach, L. le 2022
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... Show moreBackground 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. Show less
Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available... Show moreBackground Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available globally to assist clinicians in the management of patients with skin disease. Objectives To search for and identify CPGs for dermatological conditions with the highest burden globally. Methods We adapted a list of 12 dermatological conditions with the highest burden from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. A systematic literature search was done to identify CPGs published between October 2014 to October 2019. The scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Results A total of 226 CPGs were included. Melanoma had the greatest representation in the CPGs, followed by dermatitis and psoriasis. Skin cancers had a relatively high CPG representation but with lower GBD disease burden ranking. There was an uneven distribution by geographical region, with resource-poor settings being under-represented. The skin disease categories of the CPGs correlated weakly with the GBD disability-adjusted life-years metrics. Eighty-nine CPGs did not have funding disclosures and 34 CPGs were behind a paywall. Conclusions The global production of dermatology CPGs showed wide variation in geographical representation, article accessibility and reporting of funding. The number of skin disease CPGs were not commensurate with its disease burden. Future work will critically appraise the methodology and quality of dermatology CPGs and lead to the production of an accessible online resource summarizing these findings. Show less
Zuuren, E.J. van; Arents, B.W.M.; Linden, M.M.D. van der; Vermeulen, S.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Tan, J. 2021
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... Show moreRosacea 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. Show less
Zuuren, E.J. van; Arents, B.W.M.; Miklas, M.; Schoones, J.W.; Tan, J. 2020
Background After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together... Show moreBackground After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together form an Acne Core Outcome Set (ACORN). One of these was satisfaction with acne treatment.Objectives To identify studies that described the development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), evaluated one or more measurement properties of a PROM, or evaluated the interpretability of a PROM in patients with acne regarding treatment satisfaction.Methods The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) search strategy for identifying PROMS on acne treatment satisfaction was used. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search premier (June 2020). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality according to COSMIN guidance were carried out independently by two authors.Results Only one study could be included, describing the development of a treatment satisfaction measure in patients with acne. The development was assessed as inadequate and data on measurement properties were lacking. Additionally, we found 188 studies reporting treatment satisfaction solely as an outcome, using a wide variety of methods, none of them standardized or validated.Conclusions We could not find a PROM on treatment satisfaction to recommend for a core outcome set in acne. There is an unmet need for a PROM on treatment satisfaction in acne that is robustly developed, designed and validated. Show less
