Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare 2 methods for developing a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on the management of asymptomatic, impacted mandibular third molars. Outcome measures were the mean time invested by the participants for each method, the quality of the CPGs measured using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) indicator and observations of the group discussions. We used a national consensus procedure following the Rand modified Delphi procedure (2 panels) and a local consensus procedure (2 existing dental peer groups). The mean time spent was about equal for the 2 methods. The quality of the CPGs developed by the expert panels was higher than that of the CPGs developed by the dental peer groups. Observation indicated that all group processes were influenced by the chairperson.We concluded that the expert panel method is suitable for developing reliable CPGs on a national or regional level.
