Panelists' Views of 68 Nih Consensus Conference

Abstract

Objectives: To analyze the response patterns and trends of 68 surveys of successive NIH consensus panels' views on the NIH consensus process.Methods: Each panel's responses were compared to an “average” panel's responses calculated by determining the mean response for each survey question across panels.Results: The results show a stable pattern of panelists' generally positive views. However, several conferences were judged very positively and some very negatively compared to the norm. Most negatively viewed conferences occurred early in the consensus program's history.Conclusions: The disparate perceptions are discussed and interpreted as reflecting favorable panels' views of recent changes in the NIH Consensus Development Program.

Variability in nomenclature used for nevi with architectural disorder and cytologic atypia (microscopically dysplastic nevi) by dermatologists and dermatopathologists

“…The poor effectiveness of the conference in this respect is striking, considering that the desired outcome was merely a change in nomenclature rather than an alteration in clinical management, as was the case in many of the other NIH consensus conferences cited above. This lack of effectiveness is particularly notable, given that a recent study found that this particular NIH Consensus Conference received extremely positive reviews from the panel in virtually all conference characteristics, coming in second out of 68 conferences studied in overall conference quality, fourth in panel cohesiveness, and fifth in evidence quality 18 . However, an external assessment of the performance of the Conference is not available.…”

“…This lack of effectiveness is particularly notable, given that a recent study found that this particular NIH Consensus Conference received extremely positive reviews from the panel in virtually all conference characteristics, coming in second out of 68 conferences studied in overall conference quality, fourth in panel cohesiveness, and fifth in evidence quality. 18 However, an external assessment of the performance of the Conference is not available. A limitation of the Consensus Conference format is its sometimes adversarial nature and the lack of peer review of the material presented.…”

“…The NIH (National Institutes of Health) Consensus Conference is one commonly used approach and one that was used on two different occasions to address this particular issue. At a Consensus Conference, speakers present scientific and clinical evidence, and panelists assess the data and develop a consensus statement 17–19 . In order to enhance a conference's impact, the NIH circulates preconference notifications, encourages public attendance, and has the consensus statement read and publicly critiqued on the last day of the conference.…”

“…At a Consensus Conference, speakers present scientific and clinical evidence, and panelists assess the data and develop a consensus statement. [17][18][19] In order to enhance a conference's impact, the NIH circulates preconference notifications, encourages public attendance, and has the consensus statement read and publicly critiqued on the last day of the conference.…”

The consensus development process in transfusion medicine: does it add value?

“…In general, studies comparing various consensus development methods have not clearly shown a preferred method; a single collection of comparative studies normally shows all possible outcomes: better than, worse than, or equivalent 2,3 . The consensus development conference as formulated by the NIH is viewed favorably on the whole as a process by both users of the consensus statements and by the panelists who participate 4 …”