Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review.

Autor:	Blazey P; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada paul.blazey@ubc.ca.; Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Scott A; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Ardern CL; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Centre for Aging SMART at Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia., Davis JC; Applied Health Economics Laboratory, Faculty of Management, The University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada., Whittaker JL; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Losciale JM; Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Arthritis Research Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Khan KM; Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	British journal of sports medicine [Br J Sports Med] 2024 Jun 20; Vol. 58 (13), pp. 733-744. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 20.
DOI:	10.1136/bjsports-2023-107552
Abstrakt:	Objective: Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development. Design: Scoping review. Data Sources: We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping. Eligibility Criteria: All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered. Results: Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps. Conclusions: PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps. Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu