Related Experiment Videos
Consensus among experts and research synthesis. A comparison of methods
P M Wortman1, J M Smyth, J C Langenbrunner
1State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA.
Summary
Comparing expert consensus and research synthesis for surgical procedures like carotid endarterectomy (CE) revealed key differences in outcome assessment. Research synthesis aligns better with existing literature and trials, suggesting its superiority for evidence-based practice.
Area of Science:
- Medical assessment methodologies
- Surgical outcomes research
Background:
- Expert consensus and research synthesis are established methods for evaluating medical interventions.
- Carotid endarterectomy (CE) serves as a case study for comparing these assessment approaches.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the findings of expert consensus panels versus scientific literature synthesis for evaluating carotid endarterectomy (CE).
- To identify areas of agreement and divergence between the two assessment methods.
Main Methods:
- Utilized carotid endarterectomy (CE) as an example surgical procedure.
- Compared outcomes and indicators derived from expert consensus with those from a systematic research synthesis of scientific literature.
Main Results:
- Identified general agreement but also significant differences between the two methods.
- Research synthesis ranked 30-day mortality for asymptomatic patients as a top outcome, while consensus ranked it third ('equivocal').
- Synthesis findings corroborated other literature reviews and large-scale randomized trials.
Conclusions:
- Expert consensus may be useful for early-stage interventions with limited evidence.
- Quantitative research synthesis is preferred when sufficient high-quality studies are available for analysis.
- Differences highlight the importance of method selection in evidence-based medicine.