The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use
Abstract
Consensus methods are being used increasingly to solve problems in medicine and health. Their main purpose is to define levels of agreement on controversial subjects. Advocates suggest that, when properly employed, consensus strategies can create structured environments in which experts are given the best available information, allowing their solutions to problems to be more justifiable and credible than otherwise. This paper surveys the characteristics of several major methods (Delphi, Nominal Group, and models developed by the National Institutes of Health and Glaser) and provides guidelines for those who want to use the techniques. Among the concerns these guidelines address are selecting problems, choosing members for consensus panels, specifying acceptable levels of agreement, properly using empirical data, obtaining professional and political support, and disseminating results.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“CPGs specifying methods reported formal consensus through Delphi [35] or Glaser-like [36] techniques (19%), informal consensus (that is, no mention of specific or recognized techniques, or insufficient detail; 31%), or a voting system (18%).”
In the citing paper
“The UEG/ESNM began a Delphi process to develop consensus statements on chronic nausea and vomiting in collaboration with other European societies, applying the adapted RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method [ 3 , 4 ]”
From European Guideline on Chronic Nausea and Vomiting—A UEG and ESNM Consensus for Clinical Management (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
Citations
Cites
A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning
Delbecq, A. L., & de Ven, A. H. V. (1971) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/002188637100700404 · Cited by 1,185
The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies.
de Ven, A. H. V., & Delbecq, A. L. (1972) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.62.3.337 · Cited by 640
Medical Assessment by a Delphi Group Opinion Technic
Milholland, A. V., Wheeler, S. G., & Heieck, J. J. (1973) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197306142882405 · Cited by 218
Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a pediatrics department
Loughlin, K. G., & Moore, L. F. (1979) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-197902000-00006 · Cited by 210
The NIH Consensus-Development Program and the Assessment of Health-Care Technologies
Perry, S., & Kalberer, J. T. (1980) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198007173030334 · Cited by 83
Formulating Priorities for Quality Assurance Activity
Williamson, J. (1978) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1978.03280340051021 · Cited by 82
Using Behavioral Science Strategies for Defining the State-of-the-Art
Glaser, E. M. (1980) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/002188638001600107 · Cited by 55
Rennie, D. (1981) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198103123041110 · Cited by 53
Moscovice, I., Armstrong, P., Shortell, S. M., & Bennett, R. (1977) · Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law · doi:10.1215/03616878-2-3-388 · Cited by 45
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Loughlin KG, 1979, J Med Educ, 54, 101
- Gustafson DH, 1975, Inquiry, 12, 251
- Thomson WA, 1979, J Allied Health Behav Sci, 2, 383
- Kumaran K, 1976, Dimens Health Serv, 53, 32
- Goodale F, 1976, J Med Educ, 51, 897
- Jellson IA: The National Drug Abuse Policy Delphi: progress report and findings to date. In: Lindstone HA, Turuff M (eds): The Delphi Method-Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
- Starkweather DB, 1975, Inquiry, 12, 251
- Gustafson DH, 1975, Inquiry, 12, 251
- NIH Consensus Development Conference Summaries. 1981-0-341-132/ 3357, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Govt Printing Office, 1980.
- Hill RB, 1981, J Med Educ, 56, 537
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Palisano, R. J., Rosenbaum, P., Walter, S. D., Russell, D., Wood, E. P., & Galuppi, B. E. (1997) · Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1997.tb07414.x · Cited by 6,728
Derivation of the sledai. A disease activity index for lupus patients
Bombardier, C., Gladman, D. D., Urowitz, M. B., Caron, D., Chang, C. H., Austin, A., Bell, A., Bloch, D. A., Corey, P. N., Decker, J. L., et al. (1992) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780350606 · Cited by 4,570
Nomenclature of Systemic Vasculitides
Jennette, J. C., Falk, R. J., Andrássy, K., BACON, P. A., Churg, J., Gross, W. L., Hagen, E. C., Hoffman, G. S., Hunder, G. G., Kallenberg, C. G. M., et al. (1994) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.1780370206 · Cited by 3,867
Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research
Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 · Cited by 3,471
Metadata
- Authors
- Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 1984-09
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 979-983
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- OpenAlex
- W2168909631
- Cited by
- 2,089
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 56 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 107 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 90 · 2012: 71
- FWCI
- 55.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
- Keywords
- consensus methods, Delphi method, nominal group technique, expert panel, health policy decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Delphi Technique, Humans, Methods, National Institutes of Health (U.S.), Research Design, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
