ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

medRxiv

Abstract

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.

Authors 11

1. William T Gattrell corresponding

   Bristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom)

   Affiliation as printed

   Bristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK

2. Patrícia Logullo

   University of Oxford

   Affiliation as printed

   Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, and EQUATOR Network UK Centre, Oxford, UK

3. Esther J van Zuuren Aachen

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands

4. Amy I Price

   Stanford Medicine · Stanford University

   Affiliation as printed

   Stanford Anesthesia, Informatics and Media Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

5. Ellen L. Hughes
   Affiliation as printed

   OPEN Health Communications, Marlow, UK

6. Paul Blazey

   University of British Columbia

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

7. Christopher Winchester

   University of Oxford

   Affiliation as printed

   Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, UK

   Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, UK

8. David I Tovey
   Affiliation as printed

   Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, London, UK

9. Keith Goldman

   AbbVie (United States)

   Affiliation as printed

   Global Medical Affairs, AbbVie, North Chicago, IL, USA

10. A. P. S. Hungin

    Newcastle University

    Affiliation as printed

    Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK

11. Niall Harrison
    Affiliation as printed

    OPEN Health Communications, Marlow, UK