Nominal group technique is reliable for deciding research priorities

Traditionally, research priorities have emerged in rather uncertain and obscure ways. Informal methods, such as committees, risk being dominated by the most powerful members. Formal consensus development methods (widely used in nursing) offer an alternative approach—wide participation is encouraged, everyone's views carry equal weight, and the process is transparent. Vella et al (p 976) tested the feasibility of a nominal group technique to establish research priorities in critical care. With their group of 10 doctors and two nurses, they found that such an approach was feasible and reliable. Rather than prioritising the evaluation of specific health technologies or clinical questions, critical care clinicians tended to identify the need for research on the best ways of delivering and organising intensive and high dependency care.