Abstract
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. We aimed to develop the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document).
Methods 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 finalise 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.
Results A Delphi panel (n=72) was recruited with representation from six continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy and patient perspectives. The three rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54 and 51 panellists. 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 rigour 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.
Competing Interest Statement
PL is a member of the UK EQUATOR Centre, based in the University of Oxford; EQUATOR promotes the use of reporting guidelines, many of which are developed using consensus methods, and she is personally involved in the development of other reporting guidelines. WG is an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. KG is an employee of AbbVie. APH, in the last five years, worked with Reckitt Benckiser for the development of the definitions and management of gastrooesophageal reflux disease. CCW is an employee, Director, and shareholder of Oxford PharmaGenesis Ltd., a Director of Oxford Health Policy Forum CIC, a Trustee of the Friends of the National Library of Medicine, and an Associate Fellow of Green Templeton College, University of Oxford. NH and EH are employees of OPEN Health Communications. DT is coeditor in chief of the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and chairs the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Centre for Biomedical Transparency. AP, PB and EJvZ report no conflicts of interest. At the outset of the work, Niall Harrison was an employee of Ogilvy Health UK and William Gattrell was an employee of Ipsen.
Funding Statement
The open access fee for this article was provided by Oxford PharmaGenesis.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Central University Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford gave ethical approval for this work(Reference number: R81767/RE001).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
