Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The evolution of a systematic approach to assessing pertinent investigations is known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is defined as the conscientious and judicious use of current best evidence from clinical care research and integration of clinical expertise in the management of individual patients. There is no doubt that EBM is important but may not give clinically meaningful guidance on topics with clinical equipoise for individual patient care. When EBM has been insufficiently developed for a specific topic, a consensus opinion of experts can be valuable. In principle, there are 2 consensus methods for expert opinion available: the nominal group technique and the Delphi method. The nominal group technique is a structured face-to-face meeting facilitating discussion and allows participants to voice their opinions. The key characteristics of the Delphi method are the use of panel experts to obtain data, no face-to-face discussions, the use of sequential questionnaires, the systematic emergence of a concurrent opinion, use of frequency distributions to identify patterns, and the use of at least 2 rounds with feedback between rounds. We should not dismiss the collective experience of our leading experts, and expert consensus-based evidence should be explored as another tool to improve the quality of treatment for our patients.
Hohmann et al. (Fri,) studied this question.