ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods
PLoS Medicine, vol. 21, pp. e1004390
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus amongst interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines. The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables and figures. CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD materials - including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document - can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.
Authors 10
-
Patrícia Logullo corresponding
Affiliation as printed
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, and EQUATOR Network UK Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom
-
Esther J van Zuuren Aachen
Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center
Affiliation as printed
Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
-
Affiliation as printed
Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, United Kingdom
-
Affiliation as printed
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, London, United Kingdom
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom)
Affiliation as printed
Bristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
-
Dartmouth College · Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · Stanford Medicine · Stanford University
Affiliation as printed
Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice (TDI), Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA, previously at Stanford Anesthesia, Informatics and Media Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America
-
Affiliation as printed
OPEN Health Communications, Marlow, United Kingdom
-
Affiliation as printed
Global Medical Affairs, AbbVie, North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
-
Affiliation as printed
Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, United Kingdom
-
University of British Columbia
Affiliation as printed
Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Cited by 67 stored of 67
No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-11).