Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Is there expert consensus on expert consensus?

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 53, pages 1055–1060 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

There are as many opinions as there are experts

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

References

  1. Endnote: the correct statistical term is estimate, not guess.

  2. Galton F. Vox Populi. Nature. 1907;75:450–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Endnote: Galton considered the butchers to be experts.

  4. Wallis KF. Revisiting Francis Galton’s forecasting competition. Stat Sci. 2014;29:420–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/08/07/429720443/17-205-people-guessed-the-weight-of-a-cow-heres-how-they-did. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.

  6. Surowiecki J. The wisdom of crowds: why they are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economics, societies and nations. New York, NY: Anchor books; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobs C, Graham JD, Makarski J, Chasse M, Fergusson D, Hutton B, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines and consensus statements in oncology—an assessment of their methodological quality. PLoS ONE. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110469.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Kea B, Sun BJ. Consensus development for healthcare professionals. Intern Emerg Med. 2015;10:373–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Endnote: We acknowledge the truth may not be knowable with complete accuracy and precision because of 2 unavoidable considerations: measurement, error and chance.

  10. Gale RP, Park RE, Dubois R, Bitran J, Buzdar A, Hortobagyi G, et al. Delphi-consensus panel analysis of appropriateness of high-dose chemotherapy and blood cell or bone marrow autotransplants in women with breast cancer. Clin Transplant. 2000;14:32–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tallman MS, Gray R, Robert NJ, LeMaistre CF, Osborne CK, Vaughn WP, et al. Conventional adjuvant chemotherapy with or without high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in high-risk breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:17–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stadtmauer EA, O’Neill A, Goldstein LJ, Crilley PA, Mangan KF, Ingle JN, et al. Conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. Philadelphia Bone Marrow Transplant Group. N Eng J Med. 2000;342:1069–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Berry DA, Ueno NT, Johnson MM, Lei X, Caputo J, Rohenhuis S, et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell support as adjuvant therapy in breast cancer: overview of 15 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3214–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Prasad V, Gail V, Cifu A. The frequency of medical reversal. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1675–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ioannidis JP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in higher cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294:218–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Space for BR Med J. http://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/

  17. Prasad VK, CIfu AS. Ending medical reversal: improving outcomes, saving lives. 1st Edition. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howard DH, Kenline C, Lazarus HM, Lemaistre CF, Maziarz RT, McCarthy PL Jr, et al. Abandonment of high-dose chemotherapy/hematopoietic cell transplants for breast cancer following negative trial results. Health Serv Res. 2011;46:1762–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/statin-use-in-adults-preventive-medication1. Accessed 6 Jan 2018.

  20. Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, Sen S, Tang K, Davies J, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391:31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/upshot/what-we-mean-when-we-say-evidence-based-medicine.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2017.

  22. Mortensen MB, Nordestgaard BG. Comparison for statin use in primary prevention in a contemporary general population. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168: 85-92.

  23. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/aml.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2017.

  24. Döhner H, Estey E, Grimwade D, Amadori S, Appelbaum FS, Büchner T, et al. Diagnosis and management of AML in adults: 2017 ELN recommendations from an international expert panel. Blood. 2017;129:424–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Browers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182:E839–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham RMM, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, Editors.. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2011. Committee on Standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines

    Google Scholar 

  27. Guidelines International Network. http://www.g-i-n.net/. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.

  28. http://www.cebm.net. Accessed 31 Dec 2017.

  29. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/. Accessed 31 Dec 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Prof. Hillard Lazarus (Case Western Reserve Univ.) kindly reviewed the typescript. RPG acknowledges support from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre funding scheme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RCCS Policlinico S.Matteo Foundation, Pavia, Italy

    Giovanni Barosi

  2. Haematology Research Centre, Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Robert Peter Gale

Authors
  1. Giovanni Barosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Peter Gale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Peter Gale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

RPG is a part-time employee of Celgene Corp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barosi, G., Gale, R.P. Is there expert consensus on expert consensus?. Bone Marrow Transplant 53, 1055–1060 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0128-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41409-018-0128-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links