The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.
Open accessAbstract
NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS.Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment.Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects.These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care.It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Panel.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein.In particular, policy options in the area of screening will, in England, be considered by the National Screening Committee.This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
REMEMBERING: A STUDY IN EXPERIMENTAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Bartlett, F. C., & Burt, C. (1933) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1933.tb02913.x · Cited by 7,475
A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0046408 · Cited by 4,819
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Cited by
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
Jünger, S., Payne, S. A., Brine, J., Radbruch, L., & Brearley, S. G. (2017) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216317690685 · Cited by 2,210
Boulkedid, R., Abdoul, H., Loustau, M., Sibony, O., & Alberti, C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020476 · Cited by 2,045
Elwyn, G. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae · Cited by 1,824
Treatment of stage I–III periodontitis—The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline
Sanz, M., Herrera, D., Kebschull, M., Chapple, I., Jepsen, S., Berglundh, T., Sculean, A., Tonetti, M. S., & Consultants, E. W. P. A. M. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Periodontology · doi:10.1111/jcpe.13290 · Cited by 1,934
Metadata
- Authors
- Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, & Marteau
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- i-iv, 1
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- OpenAlex
- W3139553455
- Cited by
- 2,051
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 14.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment Programme (93/53/01)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta2030
- The paper
- Murphy, Black, Lamping, McKee, Sanderson, Askham, & Marteau. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.