PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10181992

A new method of developing expert consensus practice guidelines.

Abstract

To improve the quality of medical care while reducing costs, it is necessary to standardize best practice habits at the most crucial clinical decision points. Because many pertinent questions encountered in everyday practice are not well answered by the available research, expert consensus is a valuable bridge between clinical research and clinical practice. Previous methods of developing expert consensus have been limited by their relative lack of quantification, specificity, representativeness, and implementation. This article describes a new method of developing, documenting, and disseminating expert consensus guidelines that meets these concerns. This method has already been applied to four disorders in psychiatry and could be equally useful for other medical conditions. Leading clinical researchers studying a given disorder complete a survey soliciting their opinions on its most important disease management questions that are not covered well by definitive research. The survey response rates among the experts for the four different psychiatric disorders have each exceeded 85%. The views of the clinical researchers are validated by surveying separately a large group of practicing clinicians to ensure that the guideline recommendations are widely generalizable. All of the suggestions made in the guideline are derived from, and referenced to, the experts' survey responses using criteria that were established a priori for defining first-, second-, and third-line choices. Analysis of survey results suggests that this method of quantifying expert responses achieves a high level of reliability and reproducibility. This survey method is probably the best available means for standardizing practice for decisions points not well covered by research.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Frances, D Kahn, D Carpenter, C Frances, J Docherty. 1998. A new method of developing expert consensus practice guidelines.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10181992/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

A flexible design for multiple armed screening trials.

The goal of a screening trial is to examine several treatments with the intention of selecting one or more treatment(s) for further testing. Such a trial frequently occurs in the phase II setting, with the intention that the selected treatment be formally compared to a standard treatment in a phase III clinical trial. In this framework it is not essential that the very best treatment is definitely selected (such a decision would require a formal phase III trial), rather it is important that a substantially inferior treatment is not selected when a superior treatment exists. The level of evidence required to select a treatment based on this standard is lower than the evidence required to definitively order treatments. This paper introduces a flexible design for such trials, the flexibility coming from the use of a particular decision rule. The proposed rule states that if the observed difference in the success rates of the treatments is larger than some prespecified quantity d, then the treatment with the highest observed success rate is selected. However, if the observed difference is less than or equal to d, other factors may be considered in the selection. The goal of this design is to mirror clinical practice, where a treatment's success probability is often only one of many considerations in determining a treatment recommendation for a particular patient.

Bias↗

Estimating the number needed to treat (NNT) index when the data are subject to error.

The number needed to treat (NNT) index has been proposed as a clinically useful measure to assess the results of randomized trials and other clinical studies. In its usual form, NNT indicates the expected number of patients who must be treated with an experimental therapy in order to prevent one adverse event, compared to the expected event rates under the control therapy. It can be formulated as a function of the proportions of patients who respond to treatment by more than a certain amount, the clinically important difference. We may also wish to evaluate two group studies comparing treatment and control responses, and to consider net benefit from treatment (by also allowing for individuals who deteriorate as well as those who respond positively). In this paper, we investigate the effect on NNT caused by measurement errors in continuous outcome measures. Such errors can lead to bias in the estimated proportions of subjects with clinically important responses, and hence bias the associated values of NNT. General expressions for the bias are derived, and enumerated for typical scenarios. For many situations, reliability of 80 per cent or more in the observations is required to restrict the bias to tolerable levels.

Bias↗