Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Consensus development for healthcare professionals

  • CE - COCHRANE'S CORNER
  • Published:
Internal and Emergency Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consensus development sprang from a desire to synthesize clinician and expert opinions on clinical practice and research agendas in the 1950s. And since the American Institute of Medicine formally defined “guidelines” in 1990, there has been a proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) both formally and informally. This modern decision-making tool used by both physicians and patients, requires extensive planning to overcome the challenges of consensus development while reaping its rewards. Consensus allows for a group approach of multiple experts sharing ideas to form consensus on topics ranging from appropriateness of procedures to research agenda development. Disagreements can shed light on areas of controversy and launch further discussions. It has five main components: three inputs (defining the task, participant identification and recruitment, and information synthesis), the approach (consensus development by explicit or implicit means), and the output (dissemination of results). Each aspect requires extensive planning a priori as they influence the entire process, from how information will be interpreted, the interaction of participants, the resulting judgment, to whether there will be uptake of results. Implicit approaches utilize qualitative methods and/or a simple voting structure of majority wins, and are used in informal consensus development methods and consensus development conferences. Explicit approaches aggregate results or judgments using explicit rules set a priori with definitions of “agreement” or consensus. Because the implicit process can be more opaque, unforeseen challenges can emerge such as the undue influence of a minority. And yet, the logistics of explicit approaches may be more time consuming and not appropriate when speed is a priority. In determining which method to use, it is important to understand the pros and cons of different approaches and how it will affect the overall input, approach, and outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CF, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 2(3):i–iv (1–88)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bayley EW, Richmond T, Noroian EL, Allen LR (1994) A Delphi study on research priorities for trauma nursing. Am J Crit Care 3(3):208–216

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bond S, Bond J (1982) A Delphi survey of clinical nursing research priorities. J Adv Nurs 7(6):565–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kors JA, van Herpen G, van Bemmel JH (1992) Variability in ECG computer interpretation. Analysis of individual complexes vs analysis of a representative complex. J Electrocardiol 25(4):263–271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rinaldi RC, Steindler EM, Wilford BB, Goodwin D (1988) Clarification and standardization of substance abuse terminology. JAMA 259(4):555–557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE (1986) A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2(1):53–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH, Chassin MR, Kahn KL, Merrick NJ, Kosecoff J, Solomon DH (1986) Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health 76(7):766–772

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shekelle PG, Chassin MR, Park RE (1998) Assessing the predictive validity of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method criteria for performing carotid endarterectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(4):707–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Field M, Lohr K (1990) Committe to Advise the Public Health Service on clinical practice guidelines IoM: Clinical practice guidelines: directions for a new program. Institute of Medicine, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  10. Weisz G, Cambrosio A, Keating P, Knaapen L, Schlich T, Tournay VJ (2007) The emergence of clinical practice guidelines. Milbank Q 85(4):691–727. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00505.x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hurwitz B (1994) Clinical guidelines: proliferation and medicolegal significance. Qual Health Care 3(1):37–44

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. HIaQ Authority (2011) National quality assurance criteria for clinical guidelines. Health Information and Quality Authority, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greenfield S, Steinberg EP, Auerbach A, Avorn JL, Lau J, Morrow M, Mulrow CD, Rosoff AJ, Santa J, Shiffman RN, smitt WR, Stewart WR, Stovall E, Storm BL, Titler MG (2011) Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Institute of Medicine, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pagliari C, Grimshaw J (2002) Impact of group structure and process on multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline development: an observational study. J Eval Clin Pract 8(2):145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schunemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, Ventresca M, Brignardello-Petersen R, Laisaar KT, Kowalski S, Baldeh T, Zhang Y, Raid U, Neumann I, Norris SL, Thornton J, Harbour R, Treweek S, Guyatt G, Alonso-Coello P, Reinap M, Brozek J, Oxman A, Akl EA (2014) Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. Can Med Assoc J (journal de l’Association medicale canadienne) 186:E123–E142. doi:10.1503/cmaj.131237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyatt G, Vandvik PO (2013) Creating clinical practice guidelines: problems and solutions. Chest 144(2):365–367. doi:10.1378/chest.13-0463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shekelle P, Woolf S, Grimshaw JM, Schunemann HJ, Eccles MP (2012) Developing clinical practice guidelines: reviewing, reporting, and publishing guidelines; updating guidelines; and the emerging issues of enhancing guideline implementability and accounting for comorbid conditions in guideline development. Implement Sci 7:62. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-62

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P, Schunemann HJ, Woolf S (2012) Developing clinical practice guidelines: target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci 7:60. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-60

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Woolf S, Schunemann HJ, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM, Shekelle P (2012) Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations. Implement Sci 7:61. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-61

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. PCORI (2014) Engagement in research. Patient-centered outcomes research institute. http://www.pcori.org/get-involved/what-is-engagement-in-research/. Accessed 23 June 2014

  21. Hogarth R (1978) A note on aggregating opinions. Organ Behav Hum Perform 21:40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sun BC, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Cruz JD, EDSRSR Consortium to Standardize (2012) Standardized reporting guidelines for emergency department syncope risk-stratification research. Acad Emerg Med 19(6):694–702. doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01375.x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eichacker PQ, Natanson C, Danner RL (2006) Surviving sepsis–practice guidelines, marketing campaigns, and Eli Lilly. New Engl J Med 355(16):1640–1642. doi:10.1056/NEJMp068197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF, LaRosa SP, Dhainaut JF, Lopez-Rodriguez A, Steingrub JS, Garber GE, Helterbrand JD, Ely EW, Fisher CJ Jr, CWEiSSsg Recombinant human protein (2001) Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. New Engl J Med 344(10):699–709. doi:10.1056/NEJM200103083441001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abraham E (2005) Effects of recombinant human activated protein C in human models of endotoxin administration. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2(3):243–247. doi:10.1513/pats.200501-004AC

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nadel S, Goldstein B, Williams MD, Dalton H, Peters M, Macias WL, Abd-Allah SA, Levy H, Angle R, Wang D, Sundin DP, Giroir B, REs Sepsis, g Organ dysfunction in children: a gLobal perspective study (2007) Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in children with severe sepsis: a multicentre phase III randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369(9564):836–843. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60411-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Finfer S, Gardlund B, Marshall JC, Rhodes A, Artigas A, Payen D, Tenhunen J, Al-Khalidi HR, Thompson V, Janes J, Macias WL, Vangerow B, Williams MD, P-SS Group (2012) Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. New Engl J Med 366(22):2055–2064. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1202290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jacoby I (1988) Evidence and consensus. JAMA 259(20):3039

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH (1984) Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74(9):979–983

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2(12):e1350. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001350

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Akl EA, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):151–157. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Norris S, Meerpohl J, Djulbegovic B, Alonso-Coello P, Post PN, Busse JW, Glasziou P, Christensen R, Schunemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):158–172. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, Johnston BC, Karanicolas P, Akl EA, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Kupper LL, Martin SL, Meerpohl JJ, Alonso-Coello P, Christensen R, Schunemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):173–183. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guyatt G, Eikelboom JW, Akl EA, Crowther M, Gutterman D, Kahn SR, Schunemann H, Hirsh J (2013) A guide to GRADE guidelines for the readers of JTH. J Thromb Haemost 11(8):1603–1608. doi:10.1111/jth.12320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, Rind D, Montori VM, Brito JP, Norris S, Elbarbary M, Post P, Nasser M, Shukla V, Jaeschke R, Brozek J, Djulbegovic B, Guyatt G (2013) GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):726–735. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, Nasser M, Meerpohl J, Post PN, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist G, Rind D, Akl EA, Schunemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 66(7):719–725. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.03.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines-an introduction to the 10th-13th articles in the series. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):121–123. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Brunetti M, Shemilt I, Pregno S, Vale L, Oxman AD, Lord J, Sisk J, Ruiz F, Hill S, Guyatt GH, Jaeschke R, Helfand M, Harbour R, Davoli M, Amato L, Liberati A, Schunemann HJ (2013) GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 66(2):140–150. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.04.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, Devereaux PJ, Montori VM, Freyschuss B, Vist G, Jaeschke R, Williams JW Jr, Murad MH, Sinclair D, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Whittington C, Thorlund K, Andrews J, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12):1283–1293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, Alonso-Coello P, Glasziou P, Jaeschke R, Akl EA, Norris S, Vist G, Dahm P, Shukla VK, Higgins J, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ, GW Group (2011) GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence–inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12):1294–1302. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Djulbegovic B, Atkins D, Falck-Ytter Y, Williams JW Jr, Meerpohl J, Norris SL, Akl EA, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemio 64(12):1277–1282. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, Alonso-Coello P, Falck-Ytter Y, Jaeschke R, Vist G, Akl EA, Post PN, Norris S, Meerpohl J, Shukla VK, Nasser M, Schunemann HJ, GW Group (2011) GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12):1303–1310. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.04.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, Atkins D, Kunz R, Brozek J, Montori V, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Dahm P, Meerpohl J, Vist G, Berliner E, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Murad MH, Schunemann HJ, GW Group (2011) GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(12):1311–1316. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Scott IA, Guyatt GH (2011) Clinical practice guidelines: the need for greater transparency in formulating recommendations. The Medical journal of Australia 195(1):29–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Montori V, Akl EA, Djulbegovic B, Falck-Ytter Y, Norris SL, Williams JW Jr, Atkins D, Meerpohl J, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):407–415. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Compalati E, Kreis J, Terracciano L, Fiocchi A, Ueffing E, Andrews J, Alonso-Coello P, Lang DM, Jaeschke R, Williams JW Jr, Phillips B, Lethaby A, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Helfand M, Watine J, Afilalo M, Welch V, Montedori A, Abraha I, Horvath AR, Bousquet J, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ, GW Group (2011) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations. Allergy 66(5):588–595. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02530.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):401–406. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R, Rind D, Meerpohl J, Dahm P, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):383–394. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, Alderson P, Glasziou P, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ (2011) GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):395–400. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):380–382. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Guyatt G, Akl EA, Hirsh J, Kearon C, Crowther M, Gutterman D, Lewis SZ, Nathanson I, Jaeschke R, Schunemann H (2010) The vexing problem of guidelines and conflict of interest: a potential solution. Ann Intern Med 152(11):738–741. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ (1995) Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 311(7012):1056–1059 (discussion 1059–1060)

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K (1994) Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 309(6957):761–764

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS (1988) An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New Engl J Med 318(26):1728–1733. doi:10.1056/NEJM198806303182605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Bettman JW Jr, Bettman JW Sr (1977) One-day hospitalization for extracapsular cataract surgery without phacoemulsification. Ophthalmic Surg 8(4):81–86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Jarvenpaa SL (1990) Graphic displays in decision making-the visual salience effect. Behav Decision Mak 3(4):247–262. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960030403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Summaries for patients. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 151(10):I-44. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00002

    Google Scholar 

  59. Goodman A (2011) Attitudes toward mammography guidelines influenced by media. Medscape. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/744107. Accessed 18 June 2014

  60. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM (2011) How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci 6:26. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-26

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Penciner R, Langhan T, Lee R, McEwen J, Woods RA, Bandiera G (2011) Using a Delphi process to establish consensus on emergency medicine clerkship competencies. Med Teach 33(6):e333–e339. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2011.575903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lindsay P, Schull M, Bronskill S, Anderson G (2002) The development of indicators to measure the quality of clinical care in emergency departments following a modified-Delphi approach. Acad Emerg Med 9(11):1131–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Solberg LI, Asplin BR, Weinick RM, Magid DJ (2003) Emergency department crowding: consensus development of potential measures. Ann Emerg Med 42(6):824–834. doi:10.1016/S0196064403008163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Cairns CB, Maier RV, Adeoye O, Baptiste D, Barsan WG, Blackbourne L, Burd R, Carpenter C, Chang D, Cioffi W, Cornwell E, Dean JM, Dyer C, Jaffe D, Manley G, Meurer WJ, Neumar R, Silbergleit R, Stevens M, Wang M, Weiner D, Wright D, Roundtable External P, Roundtable Steering C, Federal P (2010) NIH Roundtable on Emergency Trauma Research. Ann Emerg Med 56(5):538–550. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. D’Onofrio G, Jauch E, Jagoda A, Allen MH, Anglin D, Barsan WG, Berger RP, Bobrow BJ, Boudreaux ED, Bushnell C, Chan YF, Currier G, Eggly S, Ichord R, Larkin GL, Laskowitz D, Neumar RW, Newman-Toker DE, Quinn J, Shear K, Todd KH, Zatzick D, Roundtable External P, Roundtable Steering C, Federal P (2010) NIH Roundtable on Opportunities to Advance Research on Neurologic and Psychiatric Emergencies. Ann Emerg Med 56(5):551–564. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.06.562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kaji AH, Lewis RJ, Beavers-May T, Berg R, Bulger E, Cairns C, Callaway C, Camargo CA Jr, Carcillo J, DeBiasi R, Diaz T, Ducharme F, Glickman S, Heilpern K, Hickey R, Hoek TV, Hollander J, Janson S, Jurkovich G, Kellermann A, Kingsmore S, Kline J, Kuppermann N, Lowe R, McLario D, Nathanson L, Nichol G, Peitzman A, Richardson L, Sanders A, Shah M, Shapiro N, Silverman R, Than M, Wilber S, Yealy DM, Roundtable External P, Roundtable Steering C, Federal P (2010) Summary of NIH Medical-Surgical Emergency Research Roundtable held on April 30 to May 1, 2009. Ann Emerg Med 56(5):522–537. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.03.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Sun BC, Costantino G, Barbic F, Bossi I, Casazza G, Dipaola F, McDermott D, Quinn J, Reed M, Sheldon RS, Solbiati M, Thiruganasambandamoorthy V, Krahn AD, Beach D, Bodemer N, Brignole M, Casagranda I, Duca P, Falavigna G, Ippoliti R, Montano N, Olshansky B, Raj SR, Ruwald MH, Shen WK, Stiell I, Ungar A, van Dijk JG, van Dijk N, Wieling W, Furlan R (2014) Priorities for Emergency Department Syncope Research. Ann Emerg Med. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.04.014

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Policy and Research in Emergency Medicine (CPR-EM), Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, MC CR 114, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    Bory Kea & Benjamin Chih-An Sun

Authors
  1. Bory Kea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Chih-An Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bory Kea.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kea, B., Sun, B.CA. Consensus development for healthcare professionals. Intern Emerg Med 10, 373–383 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-014-1156-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-014-1156-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation