Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2025
A Metadata Extraction Approach for Clinical Case Reports to Enable Advanced Understanding of Biomedical Concepts
Published on: September 20, 2018
A Systematic Scoping Review of Essential Methodological Elements for Developing a Tool to Improve the Reporting of
Yimy F Medina1,2, Cindy V Mendieta1,3, Natalia Prieto2
1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, PhD Program in Clinical Epidemiology, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia.
Introduction:
A consensus is a general agreement among group members that is pivotal in gathering expert input for classification, diagnostic criteria, and guideline development. However, the absence of established methodological standards presents challenges in conducting and analyzing these studies.
Objective:
This scoping review explored the evidence on essential elements in consensus studies to create a list of candidate items for a standardized reporting tool. This tool is intended to improve the critical appraisal and methodological rigor of consensus studies.
Methods:
A systematic scoping review was conducted using predetermined criteria for study selecting studies and extracting data. A comprehensive literature search was performed without imposing date restrictions, covering multiple databases, including Medline, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, and up to March 2022. We included only English-language publications and excluded incomplete articles and conference reports. The risk of bias was assessed using the CASP checklist, and the study selection and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers in duplicate.
Results:
We identified 8360 references; 20 publications were included for data extraction. The majority (70%) used the Delphi method, and the remainder (30%) employed the modified Delphi method. Inconsistencies in reporting conflicts of interest and consensus timing were observed. Other methodologies, such as RAND/UCLA and Nominal Group Technique were excluded due to methodological limitations. Most studies exhibited a low risk of bias.
Discussion:
Our findings underscored the need for more standardization in definitions, methodology, and reporting within consensus studies. To address these gaps, we developed a checklist of key reporting items aimed at improving the planning, execution, and reporting consensus studies. Although the developed checklist requires validation, it offers a practical framework to enhance methodological transparency and reliability.
Conclusion:
Deficiencies and variability in consensus methodologies reporting underscore the need for a standardized approach. We propose the adoption of a checklist to strengthen the robustness of consensus studies, supporting advances in classification, diagnostic criteria, and guideline development.
More Related Videos
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:27Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:15Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
01:28Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...