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

\ua9 2024 Gattrell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.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. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). Methods and findings 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 finalize 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. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. 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 rigor 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

Reevaluating response and failure of medical treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient response rates to medical therapies used to treat endometriosis-associated pain. DESIGN: A systematic review with the use of Medline and Embase. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women receiving medical therapy to treat endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportions of patients who: experienced no reduction in endometriosis-associated pain symptoms; had pain symptoms remaining at the end of the treatment period; had pain recurrence after treatment cessation; experienced an increase or no change in disease score during the study; were satisfied with treatment; and discontinued therapy owing to adverse events or lack of efficacy. The change in pain symptom severity experienced during and after treatment, as measured on the visual analog scale, was also assessed. RESULT(S): In total, 58 articles describing 125 treatment arms met the inclusion criteria. Data for the response of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms to treatment were presented in only 29 articles. The median proportions of women with no reduction in pain were 11%-19%; at the end of treatment, 5%-59% had pain remaining; and after follow-up, 17%-34% had experienced recurrence of pain symptoms after treatment cessation. After median study durations of 2-24 months, the median discontinuation rates due to adverse events or lack of efficacy were 5%-16%. CONCLUSION(S): Few studies of medical therapies for endometriosis report outcomes that are relevant to patients, and many women gain only limited or intermittent benefit from treatment

Reevaluating response and failure of medical treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient response rates to medical therapies used to treat endometriosis-associated pain. DESIGN: A systematic review with the use of Medline and Embase. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women receiving medical therapy to treat endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportions of patients who: experienced no reduction in endometriosis-associated pain symptoms; had pain symptoms remaining at the end of the treatment period; had pain recurrence after treatment cessation; experienced an increase or no change in disease score during the study; were satisfied with treatment; and discontinued therapy owing to adverse events or lack of efficacy. The change in pain symptom severity experienced during and after treatment, as measured on the visual analog scale, was also assessed. RESULT(S): In total, 58 articles describing 125 treatment arms met the inclusion criteria. Data for the response of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms to treatment were presented in only 29 articles. The median proportions of women with no reduction in pain were 11%-19%; at the end of treatment, 5%-59% had pain remaining; and after follow-up, 17%-34% had experienced recurrence of pain symptoms after treatment cessation. After median study durations of 2-24 months, the median discontinuation rates due to adverse events or lack of efficacy were 5%-16%. CONCLUSION(S): Few studies of medical therapies for endometriosis report outcomes that are relevant to patients, and many women gain only limited or intermittent benefit from treatment

Surgical outcomes in patients with endometriosis: a systematic review

Objective Among women treated surgically for endometriosis-associated pain, comprehensive data are lacking on the proportions of patients who experience little or no symptom relief, develop recurrent symptoms, or require further surgical treatment for endometriosis. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of surgical procedures used to treat endometriosis-associated pain. Methods Medline and Embase were searched on October 13, 2016. Articles referring to women undergoing surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain were screened by two independent investigators. For each included treatment arm, data were extracted for the proportion of patients reporting partial or no improvement after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain, pain recurrence, or requirement for further surgery. Results A total of 38 studies were included. Most studies did not report relevant outcomes to evaluate pain (71.1%) and recurrent surgery (68.4%). Of the women who underwent lesion excision, 11.8% reported no improvement in pain, and 22.6% underwent further surgery. Postoperative pain, recurrent pain, and adverse events were reported by 34.3%, 28.7%, and 14.8%, respectively, of patients who underwent excision or ablation of endometriosis combined with pelvic denervation and in 25.0%, 15.8%, and 8.1% of women who underwent lesion excision alone. Of the patients who were treated surgically for deep endometriosis affecting the bowel and/or bladder, 7.0% experienced recurrent symptoms, and 4.1% underwent further surgery. Conclusion This review supports the findings of previous studies and highlights the need for standardized reporting and more detailed follow-up after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain.</p

Surgical outcomes in patients with endometriosis: a systematic review

Objective Among women treated surgically for endometriosis-associated pain, comprehensive data are lacking on the proportions of patients who experience little or no symptom relief, develop recurrent symptoms, or require further surgical treatment for endometriosis. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of surgical procedures used to treat endometriosis-associated pain. Methods Medline and Embase were searched on October 13, 2016. Articles referring to women undergoing surgery for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain were screened by two independent investigators. For each included treatment arm, data were extracted for the proportion of patients reporting partial or no improvement after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain, pain recurrence, or requirement for further surgery. Results A total of 38 studies were included. Most studies did not report relevant outcomes to evaluate pain (71.1%) and recurrent surgery (68.4%). Of the women who underwent lesion excision, 11.8% reported no improvement in pain, and 22.6% underwent further surgery. Postoperative pain, recurrent pain, and adverse events were reported by 34.3%, 28.7%, and 14.8%, respectively, of patients who underwent excision or ablation of endometriosis combined with pelvic denervation and in 25.0%, 15.8%, and 8.1% of women who underwent lesion excision alone. Of the patients who were treated surgically for deep endometriosis affecting the bowel and/or bladder, 7.0% experienced recurrent symptoms, and 4.1% underwent further surgery. Conclusion This review supports the findings of previous studies and highlights the need for standardized reporting and more detailed follow-up after surgery for endometriosis-associated pain.</p

ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol

Background: Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or Nominal Group Technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus – for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected – can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner. Methods: The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five phases and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice. Discussion: The ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.</p