1

From "International Consensus Recommendations for the Treatment of Pediatric NMDAR Antibody Encephalitis":

A steering committee (R.C.D., M.L., T.T., M.N., and M.E.) carefully selected a panel of 27 experts with representation from all continents (later referred to as “the Panel”), and based on the individual: (1) being a specialist (usually pediatric neurologist or rheumatologist) with clinical and/or research expertise in pediatric NMDARE; these experts were identified as lead clinical researchers in the field based on the systematic review conducted before the consensus recommendations project (paper in preparation), or were nominated by national child neurology societies;

What is the meaning of the phrase in bold? Each candidate was obligated to write a systematic review about the topic in order to be identified as a lead researcher? Then why it's "paper in preparation" and not "papers in preparation"?

Or maybe the steering committee wrote a systematic review about the selection of candidate experts? But this is odd.

I hope this question is on-topic, since it's related to the process of preparing a medicinal guideline. If it's not on-topic, feel free to move to a different StackExchange section.

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    I don't think this is on topic here - it would be on topic on english language usage I think. However...based on the committee's systematic review (of the literature presumably). Probably found people with high quality (impact factor) and high volume of publications - senior authors of publications most likely. I parse it as "The committee selected reps as 1) specialists identified by review of literature or 2) by nomination."
    – bob1
    Commented Jul 20, 2022 at 1:03
  • @bob1 - on English Language and Usage they would downvote it, then closevote it as "topic-specific, not related to English language"
    – CowperKettle
    Commented Jul 20, 2022 at 2:45
  • 1
    @bob1 - thank you, I think this might be so. A review of literature, and from there they picked the names of authors of studies that were included in the review.
    – CowperKettle
    Commented Jul 20, 2022 at 2:59
  • 1
    Exactly, this is also how I understand it. Feel free to self-answer your question :)
    – Narusan
    Commented Jul 20, 2022 at 7:38

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

A "steering committee" consisting of 5 individuals, named by their initials, did a "systematic review", presumably of literature related to pediatric NMDAR antibody encephalitis, the topic of the working group. Since they write "the" systematic review, I presume the details of this review (such as dates and keywords) are provided elsewhere, but maybe not.

The steering committee used experts found in this review or those nominated by professional societies to identify "lead clinical researchers in the field" and form a larger "panel" of 27 (they actually probably first found a larger group, as items 2 & 3 would further narrow it down, particularly item 3 which is basically "they agreed to participate").

This systematic review was "conducted before the consensus recommendations project", that is, the project that came to a consensus on a guideline.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.