Objective Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development. Design Scoping review. Data sources We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping. Eligibility criteria All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered. Results Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists’ experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps. Conclusions PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how ‘agreement’ was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.

中文翻译：

---

髌股疼痛的共识方法：它们有多严格？范围审查


目的 在缺乏如何管理 PFP 的明确证据的情况下，治疗髌股疼痛 (PFP​​) 患者的临床医生依靠共识声明来提出最佳实践建议。然而，用于生成和评估这些建议一致性的方法尚未经过审查。我们的目标是绘制用于为 PFP 生成基于共识的建议的方法，并应用四个新问题来评估共识制定的严格性。设计范围审查。数据来源 我们检索了 Medline、SPORTDiscus、CINAHL 和 Embase 从成立到 2022 年 5 月的时间，以确定 PFP 的共识声明或实践指南。遵循乔安娜·布里格斯研究所证据合成手册来绘制现有证据。我们根据四组问题来衡量共识方法，这些问题涉及小组组成、所选共识方法的应用、协议流程和证据映射的使用。资格标准 考虑了有关 PFP 的所有共识声明或临床指南。结果 确定了 22 份 PFP 共识声明。小组组成：22 个共识小组中的 3 个 (14%) 报告了小组成员的经验，2 个 (9%) 定义了所需的专业水平，10 个 (45%) 报告了小组成员性别，只有 2 个 (9%) 包括患者。共识方法：22 个中的 7 个 (32%) 报告使用既定的共识测量/开发方法。达成一致的过程：22 人中的 10 人 (45%) 报告了他们的共识阈值，2 人 (9%) 承认专家组中存在不同意见。证据映射：22 人中有 6 人 (27%) 报告使用系统方法来识别相关证据差距。结论 PFP 共识小组缺乏多样性，并排除了包括患者在内的关键合作伙伴。 关于 PFP 的共识声明经常未能使用公认的共识方法，很少描述如何定义或衡量“协议”，并且经常忽略使用系统方法来识别证据差距。