Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity - EHESP-Irset
Article Dans Une Revue Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Année : 2024

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity

1 Stanford University
2 UiB - University of Bergen
3 Uppsala University
4 UCL - University College of London [London]
5 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health [Baltimore]
6 BUSM - Boston University School of Medicine
7 Stanford School of Medicine [Stanford]
8 HMS - Harvard Medical School [Boston]
9 Canberra Hospital
10 UTS - University of Technology Sydney
11 Department of Paediatrics [Melbourne]
12 MUSC - Medical University of South Carolina [Charleston]
13 Unibas - Université de Bâle = University of Basel = Basel Universität
14 UniFE - Università degli Studi di Ferrara = University of Ferrara
15 McMaster University [Hamilton, Ontario]
16 University of Pennsylvania
17 Bond University [Gold Coast]
18 University of Alberta
19 University of Manitoba [Winnipeg]
20 UZH - Universität Zürich [Zürich] = University of Zurich
21 The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center [Houston]
22 UNIMI - Università degli Studi di Milano = University of Milan
23 Department of Public Health [Helsinki]
24 Perelman School of Medicine
25 UCY - University of Cyprus [Nicosia]
26 University of Split
27 NKUA - National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
28 OHRI - Ottawa Hospital Research Institute [Ottawa]
29 Monash University [Clayton]
30 Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes [CHU Rennes] = Rennes University Hospital [Pontchaillou]
31 CIC - Centre d'Investigation Clinique [Rennes]
32 Irset - Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail
33 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
34 Umeå University = Umeå Universitet
35 UiT - The Arctic University of Norway [Tromsø, Norway]
36 UNIBE - Universität Bern = University of Bern = Université de Berne
37 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
38 Medical University of Graz = Medizinische Universität Graz
39 LMU - Ludwig Maximilian University [Munich] = Ludwig Maximilians Universität München
40 University of Melbourne
41 University of Salzburg
42 Erasmus University Rotterdam
43 University of Ottawa [Ottawa]
44 AöR - University Hospital Essen
45 Universität Bonn = University of Bonn
46 UoN - University of Newcastle [Callaghan, Australia]
47 McGill University = Université McGill [Montréal, Canada]
48 University of Athens Medical School [Athens]
49 Edin. - University of Edinburgh
Kasper Kepp
  • Fonction : Auteur
Marcel Ballin
  • Fonction : Auteur
Kevin Bardosh
  • Fonction : Auteur
Raj Bhopal
  • Fonction : Auteur
Daniel Blumstein
  • Fonction : Auteur
Paolo Boffetta
  • Fonction : Auteur
Adam Brufsky
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ioana Cristea
  • Fonction : Auteur
Lars Hemkens
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ari Joffe
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ellen Kuhl
  • Fonction : Auteur
Helena Maltezou
  • Fonction : Auteur
Lamberto Manzoli
  • Fonction : Auteur
Ana Marusic
  • Fonction : Auteur
Taulant Muka
  • Fonction : Auteur
Andrea Saltelli
  • Fonction : Auteur
John P.A. Ioannidis
  • Fonction : Auteur correspondant
  • PersonId : 1082135

Connectez-vous pour contacter l'auteur

Résumé

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.
Fichier sous embargo
Fichier sous embargo
Fichier sous embargo
0 2 28
Année Mois Jours
Avant la publication
mardi 17 décembre 2024
Fichier sous embargo
0 2 28
Année Mois Jours
Avant la publication
mardi 17 décembre 2024
Fichier sous embargo
mardi 17 décembre 2024
Connectez-vous pour demander l'accès au fichier

Dates et versions

hal-04652737 , version 1 (12-09-2024)

Licence

Identifiants

Citer

Kasper Kepp, Preben Aavitsland, Marcel Ballin, Francois Balloux, Stefan Baral, et al.. Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2024, 173, pp.111428. ⟨10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111428⟩. ⟨hal-04652737⟩
15 Consultations
0 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

More