14
HERRERA ET AL .
• Invitation of all members of the working group to reflect critically on the quality of available evidence by group chairs, considering the GRADE criteria. • Structured group discussions: development of draft recommendations and their grading, con- sidering the GRADE criteria. development of draft background texts, considering the GRADE criteria. invitation to comment on draft recommendations and background text to suggest reasonable amendments by group chairs. collection and merging of amendments by group chairs.
formally debated by the guideline panel using the format of a struc- tured consensus development conference. This consisted of small group discussions and open plenary discussions, where the proposed recommendations were presented, voted upon and adopted by con- sensus (Murphy et al., 1998). Delegates declaring potential conflicts of interest abstained from voting and abstentions were recorded. Prior to the in-person meeting, up to four online meetings were organized (one at the plenary level, and three at the working group level) in July, September and October 2021, in order to advance the process of guideline development to a mature stage prior to the face-to-face consensus meeting. In the small group phase, delegates convened in four working groups (WGs) directed by two chairpersons belonging to the EFP Workshop Committee, addressing the following subtopics: • WG 1. Treatment of pathological tooth migration in stage IV peri- odontitis patients (chairs Søren Jepsen and Mariano Sanz). • WG 2. Treatment of tooth loss/masticatory dysfunction/bite col- lapse in stage IV periodontitis patients — partial edentulism amena- ble for partial rehabilitation (chairs Moritz Kebschull and Anton Sculean). • WG 3. Treatment of tooth loss/masticatory dysfunction/bite col- lapse in stage IV periodontitis patients with a terminal dentition only amenable for full-arch rehabilitation (chairs Tord Berglundh, Panos Papapanou and Maurizio Tonetti). • WG 4. Long-term outcomes and impact of treatment in stage IV periodontitis patients (chairs Iain Chapple and David Herrera). With the support of the methodology expert, recommendations and draft background texts were generated and subsequently presented, debated and subjected to a vote in the plenary sessions with all dele- gates present. During these plenary sessions, the guideline develop- ment process and discussions and votes were overseen and facilitated by the independent guideline methodologist (I.K.). The plenary votes were recorded using an electronic voting system, checked for accu- racy and then introduced into the guideline text. The consensus process was conducted as follows:
3.3.3 | Plenary session 2 (in-person meeting, November 2021)
• Presentation of working group results (draft recommendations and background text) by working group chairs. • Invitation to formulate questions, statements and reasonable amendments of the plenum by the independent guideline method- ologist/facilitator. • Answering of questions by working group chairs. • Collection and merging of amendments by an independent moderator. • Preliminary vote on all suggestions provided by the WGs and all reasonable amendments. • Assessment of the strength of consensus. • Recording of abstentions made due to potential conflicts of interest. • Opening debate, where no consensus was reached or reasonable need for discussion was identified. • Formulation of tasks to be solved within the WGs.
3.3.4 | Working group phase 2 (in-person meeting, November 2021)
• Discussion of tasks and potential amendments raised by the plenum. • Formulation of reasonable and justifiable amendments, considering the GRADE framework. • Initial voting within the working group on recommendations and guideline text in preparation for the plenary session.
3.3.1 | Plenary session 1 (online session, July 2021)
Introduction to guideline methodology (presentation, discussion) by the independent guideline methodologist (I.K.) and the chair of the workshop (D.H).
3.3.2 | Working group phase 1 (three online sessions, from July to October 2021)
3.3.5 | Plenary session 3 (in-person meeting, November 2021)
• Peer evaluation of declarations of interest and management of conflicts of interest. • Presentation of the evidence (SR results) by group chairs and reviewers.
• Presentation of working group results by working group chairpersons. • Invitation to formulate questions, statements and reasonable amendments of the plenary by the independent moderator.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report