16
HERRERA ET AL .
• Opening debate, where no consensus was reached or reasonable need for discussion was identified. • Formulation of tasks to be solved within the WGs.
With the support of the methodology expert, recommendations and draft background texts were generated and subsequently pre- sented, debated and subjected to a vote in the plenary sessions with all delegates present. During these plenary sessions, the guideline development process and discussions and votes were overseen and facilitated by the independent guideline methodologist (I.K.). The ple- nary votes were recorded using an electronic voting system, checked for accuracy, and then introduced into the guideline text. The consensus process was conducted as follows:
3.3.4 | WG phase 2 (in-person meeting, November 2022)
• Discussion of tasks and potential amendments raised by the plenum. • Formulation of reasonable and justifiable amendments, considering the GRADE framework. • Initial voting within the WG on recommendations and guideline text in preparation for the plenary session.
3.3.1 | Plenary session 1 (online session, 26 September 2022)
Introduction to guideline methodology (presentation, discussion) by the independent guideline methodologist (I.K.) and the chair of the workshop (D.H.).
3.3.5 | Plenary session 3 (in-person meeting, November 2022)
3.3.2 | WG phase 1 (two online sessions, from 28 September to 19 October 2022)
• Presentation of WG results by WG chairpersons. • Invitation to formulate questions, statements and reasonable amendments of the plenary by the independent moderator. • Collection and merging of amendments by an independent moderator. • Preliminary vote. • Assessment of the strength of consensus. • Opening debate, where no consensus was reached or reasonable need for discussion was identified. • Formulation of reasonable alternatives. • Final vote of each recommendation, recording the consensus and abstentions due to potential CoI.
• Initial evaluation of declarations of interest and management of CoI. • Presentation of the evidence (SR results) by group chairs and reviewers. • Invitation of all members of the WG to reflect critically on the qual- ity of available evidence by group chairs, considering the GRADE criteria. • Structured group discussions: initial discussions for the development of draft recommenda- tions and their grading, considering the GRADE criteria; initial discussions for the development of draft background texts, considering the GRADE criteria; invitation to comment on draft recommendations and back- ground text to suggest reasonable amendments by group chairs; collection and merging of amendments by group chairs.
3.3.6 | Plenary session 4 (online meeting, 18 January 2022)
• Presentation of pending recommendations and suggestions received. • Preliminary vote. • Assessment of the strength of consensus. • Opening debate, where no consensus was reached or reasonable need for discussion was identified. • Formulation of reasonable alternatives. • Final vote of each recommendation, recording abstentions due to potential CoI.
3.3.3 | Plenary session 2 (in-person meeting, November 2022)
• Presentation of WG results (draft recommendations and back- ground text) by WG chairs. • Invitation to formulate questions, statements, and reasonable amendments of the plenum by the independent guideline method- ologist /facilitator. • Answering questions by WG 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 CoI.
3.4
| Definitions: Rating the quality of evidence,
grading the strength of recommendations and determining the strength of consensus
For all recommendations and statements, this guideline makes transparent:
Made with FlippingBook Annual report