In the dynamic landscape of evidence-based medicine, the ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) Reporting Guideline emerges as a transformative solution to the longstanding challenge of suboptimal reporting of the methods used in consensus statements in health research. Developed using a robust and systematic approach, ACCORD addresses the common need in biomedical research to achieve consensus among individuals with diverse perspectives, particularly in situations where evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. It serves as a comprehensive tool, providing a checklist for scientific publications reporting outcomes from a wide array of consensus methods. Whether in fast-paced pandemics or amid ample research evidence, ACCORD ensures rigorous and transparent reporting, enhancing the impact and reliability of consensus studies in healthcare decision-making.[1]
Published first in 2024, the ACCORD checklist marks a pioneering step as the first universally applicable reporting guideline for consensus-based studies. This guideline serves as a valuable tool for authors, facilitating the creation of accurate and detailed manuscripts. By enhancing the completeness and transparency of reporting, it ensures that readers gain a clear understanding of the methodologies employed to reach a consensus. Importantly, the checklist emphasizes the rigor of consensus methods, thereby reinforcing the integrity of recommendations from consensus panels.[3,4]
The development of ACCORD was marked by openness and collaboration, involving participants with diverse expertise, including methodologists, patient advocates, healthcare professionals, journal editors, and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. The process began with a systematic review that identified common gaps in reporting consensus methods, leading to the formulation of a comprehensive checklist. The ACCORD checklist was not imposed as a mandate for study conduct but rather as a reporting guideline, aiming to enhance transparency and robustness in consensus studies. Stability of agreement, a key indicator of consensus among a group, was achieved by adhering to a simple definition. ACCORD considered consensus as reaching the apriori agreed threshold for agreement over a minimum of two voting rounds, ensuring a robust and stable foundation for the reporting guideline.[2]
The ACCORD checklist for reporting consensus methods has compiled 36 crucial items organized under ten sections, that researchers should report when utilizing consensus methods in biomedical research. It meticulously guides them through every stage, starting with justifying the need for a consensus approach and defining the specific research questions. It further delves into the composition and selection process of the expert panel, ensuring diversity, relevant expertise, and transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest. The chosen consensus technique, how the agreement was measured, and the detailed process itself are also required to be reported, with an intention to reveal how data and evidence were integrated to reach recommendations. Finally, the checklist emphasizes reporting strengths, limitations, potential biases, and funding sources to foster complete transparency.[2]
The ACCORD checklist stands as the inaugural reporting guideline universally applicable to all consensus-based studies. It aids authors in crafting precise and detailed manuscripts, elevating the completeness and transparency of reporting. By doing so, it offers readers clarity on the methodologies employed to attain agreement and highlights the rigor of consensus methods that underpin recommendations. The checklist’s implementation not only improves the overall reporting quality but also fosters trust in the recommendations put forth by consensus panels, reinforcing the integrity of consensus studies.[2]
Despite the strengths of ACCORD, certain limitations have been acknowledged in the original publication. The diversity of the panel, both in terms of geography and professional backgrounds, fell short of the initial aspirations. Efforts to recruit a more diverse panel from different regions and professions, especially from South America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania, encountered challenges. The ACCORD Steering Committee recognized the importance of addressing these limitations in future revisions or extensions to ensure a more inclusive representation of expertise and experiences. Looking ahead, the ACCORD Reporting Guideline anticipates the need for updates and extensions. The rapidly evolving landscape of technology and consensus methods necessitates continuous refinement. Future updates may explore extensions into areas such as nonclinical biomedical studies, health economics, health informatics, and artificial intelligence.[2]
In conclusion, the ACCORD Reporting Guideline stands as a milestone in promoting rigor and transparency in health-related research involving consensus methods. Its comprehensive checklist addresses the limitations of existing reporting guidelines, offering a versatile tool applicable to a myriad of consensus methods. The collaborative development process, though not without its challenges, reflects a commitment to inclusivity and transparency.
Become A Certified HEOR Professional – Enrol yourself here!
References
- Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88.
- Gattrell WT, Logullo P, van Zuuren EJ, et al. ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi. PLoS Med. 2024 Jan 23;21(1):e1004326.
- Brouwers MC, Kerkvliet K, Spithoff K; AGREE Next Steps Consortium. The AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016 Mar 8;352:i1152.
- Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting: The COS-STAR Statement. PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 18;13(10):e1002148.
