The Panel Subgroup (PSG) Method: A Valuable Method for Effectively Engaging Panels in the Development of Practice Guidelines

ABSTRACT Background Clinical practice guidelines rely on expert panels to review evidence and develop recommendations. The traditional approach of engaging experts often relies on periodic full panel meetings which can lead to slow progress and variability in panel engagement. To address these issues, the ASCO introduced the Panel Subgroup (PSG) method, dividing panels into smaller working groups to enhance engagement, distribute workload, and accelerate guideline development. Objective To evaluate the PSG method on guideline development timelines, its uptake, perceived benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from the perspective of ASCO guideline methodologists. Methods This study had two phases. Phase 1 was a retrospective review of ASCO guideline administrative data (2017–2024) comparing guidelines developed using the traditional or PSG method. Guidelines were included if they were de novo, had over 50 included studies, and complete administrative records. Data extracted included number of panelists, research questions, studies reviewed, subgroups (for PSG), and development time. Phase 2 involved qualitative interviews with methodologists who used the PSG method to explore experiences, benefits, and challenges. Results Sixteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria: seven used the traditional method and nine used the PSG method. The average development time was 13 months (SD, 2.41) for the PSG method compared to traditional (23 months; SD, 6.30). PSG uptake among methodologists was 75% (6/8). Reported benefits included improved expert engagement, deeper evidence analysis, better collaboration, and shared authorship. Challenges included greater time demands, increased coordination, writing inconsistencies, and the need for full panel buy‐in. Conclusion The PSG method offers a promising structure to improve engagement and streamline productivity. While not without challenges, it may be particularly useful for large panels and complex guidelines when applied thoughtfully.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70042
Primary Topic
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Panel Subgroup (PSG) Method: A Valuable Method for Effectively Engaging Panels in the Development of Practice Guidelines

Lawrence C. E. Mbuagbaw, Jinhui Ma, Brittany Harvey, Kaitlin Einhaus et al.
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
article

The Panel Subgroup (PSG) Method: A Valuable Method for Effectively Engaging Panels in the Development of Practice Guidelines

Lawrence C. E. Mbuagbaw, Jinhui Ma, Brittany Harvey, Kaitlin Einhaus, Nofisat Ismaila, Lehana Thabane
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Clinical practice guidelines rely on expert panels to review evidence and develop recommendations. The traditional approach of engaging experts often relies on periodic full panel meetings which can lead to slow progress and variability in panel engagement. To address these issues, the ASCO introduced the Panel Subgroup (PSG) method, dividing panels into smaller working groups to enhance engagement, distribute workload, and accelerate guideline development. Objective To evaluate the PSG method on guideline development timelines, its uptake, perceived benefits, challenges, and lessons learned from the perspective of ASCO guideline methodologists. Methods This study had two phases. Phase 1 was a retrospective review of ASCO guideline administrative data (2017–2024) comparing guidelines developed using the traditional or PSG method. Guidelines were included if they were de novo, had over 50 included studies, and complete administrative records. Data extracted included number of panelists, research questions, studies reviewed, subgroups (for PSG), and development time. Phase 2 involved qualitative interviews with methodologists who used the PSG method to explore experiences, benefits, and challenges. Results Sixteen guidelines met the inclusion criteria: seven used the traditional method and nine used the PSG method. The average development time was 13 months (SD, 2.41) for the PSG method compared to traditional (23 months; SD, 6.30). PSG uptake among methodologists was 75% (6/8). Reported benefits included improved expert engagement, deeper evidence analysis, better collaboration, and shared authorship. Challenges included greater time demands, increased coordination, writing inconsistencies, and the need for full panel buy‐in. Conclusion The PSG method offers a promising structure to improve engagement and streamline productivity. While not without challenges, it may be particularly useful for large panels and complex guidelines when applied thoughtfully.

Clinical and Public Health GuidelinesVol. 2(4)
Western Cape Department of Health (ZA), American Society of Clinical Oncology (US), University of Johannesburg (ZA), Stellenbosch University (ZA), Central Hospital of Yaoundé (CM), Impact (CA), St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (CA), McMaster University (CA)
American Society of Clinical Oncology
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.