Establishing position papers by the WSES
- PDF / 375,081 Bytes
- 4 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 106 Downloads / 180 Views
REVIEW
Open Access
Establishing position papers by the WSES Miklosh Bala1*, Jeffry Kashuk2, Ernest E. Moore3, Fausto Catena4, Ari Leppaniemi5, Luca Ansaloni6, Walter Biffl7, Federico Coccolini6, Andrew Peitzman8, Massimo Sartelli9, Michael Sugrue10, Gustavo P. Fraga11, Salomone Di Saverio12 and Yoram Kluger13
Abstract A position paper (PP) should establish a unified voice in areas where controversy occurs based upon multiple practices and/or therapeutic choices. Typically, a position paper should elucidate the knowledge gap, followed by an evidence-based review of options, leading to an “endorsed position.” A position paper should represent more than the opinion or consensus of the authors but should present current opinions and practices supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). Accordingly, position papers should require the approval of an expert group of WSES and in parallel be presented at an annual meeting prior to submission for publication. It is important that a unified approach for drafting of position papers be established and endorsed by WSES in order to establish credibility and prevent misunderstandings during a smooth transition to publication. The purpose of this article is to suggest a uniform process for the development of WSES guidelines. Keywords: Position paper, Emergency surgery, Working group, Medical consensus
Background By definition, a position paper (PP) is a written statement from an organization that discusses a contemporary clinical problem and suggests an established and agreed upon approach to this problem by the organization. The other term is a “medical consensus.” According to the Council of Europe, “medical consensus” is a statement on a particular aspect of medical knowledge that generally is evidence-based, state-of-the-art knowledge by a representative group of experts in that area [1]. Its main objective is to recommend to colleagues the best possible and acceptable way to address an issue, and includes diagnosis, management, and operative treatment. PP fuses new information, largely from recent or ongoing research that may have implications for re-evaluation of routine medical practices. The primary difference between a PP and a clinical practice guideline is that PP synthesizes newly available information and reinforces best medical practices but does not give detailed algorithms or guidelines for * Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Unit, General Surgery Department, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Kiriat Hadassah, POB 12000, 91120 Jerusalem, Israel Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
practice. Additionally, it is much easier to respond to patient needs with a PP compared with clinical practice guidelines [2]. Thus, consensus statements should provide generalized and not specific algorithms, i.e., PP statements should be independent from regional expertise, technology, and local practice. Recently, several of the co-authors carried a PP concept from inception, development
Data Loading...
