A consensus conference can be characterized as a structured and participatory process that brings together a diverse group of experts and stakeholders to deliberate on a specific topic and reach a consensus on key issues and/or recommendations. In contrast to traditional decision-making models relying on hierarchical or authoritarian approaches, consensus conferences prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and shared decision-making. 

In today's rapidly evolving VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) world, decision-making processes often require input from diverse stakeholders. Consensus conferences have emerged as valuable platforms for fostering collaborative decision-making on a spectrum of issues, spanning healthcare, scientific and technological advancements to social and ethical dilemmas. Consensus conferences play a crucial role in the healthcare sector, offering healthcare professionals, for instance in implant dentistry, a forum for collaborative decision-making. In this article, we explore the significance of consensus conferences in implant dentistry, highlighting their contributions to enhancing patient care, advancing medical research and innovation, promoting evidence-based practices, and enriching professional development. By engaging stakeholders in informed discussions and consensus-building processes, these conferences empower participants to influence implant-dentistry-related healthcare policies and practices, fostering a more efficient, patient-centered and progressive provision of dental implant-related care. This article aims to explain the concept of the ITI Consensus Conferences, exploring their purpose, methodology, benefits, and potential limitations.

The ITI has a robust history of organizing consensus conferences with the first conference held in 1994. Although the initial conference did not result in an official publication, its valuable outcomes led to the decision to organize an ITI Consensus Conference once every 5 years. The results of subsequent conferences were published in leading scientific journals (Table 1).

As previously stated, a consensus conference is based on a decision-making model emphasizing inclusivity, transparency and shared decision-making. Early consensus conferences were not as structured as they are in current times. In earlier days, the opinion of an individual well-known in the field on a subject was often regarded as leading or carrying significant weight and the conferences were often ruled by decibel (those who spoke loudest were often the people that were listened to).

Nowadays we have rules and protocols that dictate how a consensus conference is to be carried out. We adhere to strict methodologies, with the topics up for discussion prepared by professionals based on systematic reviews of the available literature.

Systematic reviews form the foundation of consensus conferences as they are held today. When writing a systematic review, a design is set up based on a research question to provide a summary of the current literature relevant to the topic. The authors employ a rigorous and transparent approach using repeatable methods to find, select and synthesize the available research (evidence) with emphasis on analyzing and pinpointing the bias in the findings. The systematic review process typically involves formulating clear research questions, identifying relevant publications through extensive research, assessing research quality at every step, summarizing evidence using statistical methods to interpret findings.

Often the following general steps are followed:

1. Formulating the research question: clear unambiguous and structured questions. Once these have been defined, they cannot be changed during the process.
2. Defining inclusion and exclusion criteria
3. Identifying relevant publications: extensive research through multiple sources (data bases and hand search) and, when possible, preferably without language restrictions. Reasons for in- and exclusion must be recorded.
4. Selecting studies based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and assessing research quality. This is important at every step of the process. The question formulation and selection criteria must describe the minimal level of structure and design that is acceptable. When studies are selected, a more scrupulous analysis is conducted following design-based quality checklists. This information in turn is then used to select the topics that can be included in the meta-analysis. The strength of this information is also of importance when defining future research.
5. Extracting data from the included studies. Specific software has been developed for this purpose, although an excel file can also be used.
6. Summarizing the evidence and identifying the quality: statistical methods are used to analyze the structure, quality and results when analyzing the differences in the selected studies.
7. Interpreting the findings: have all the aspects of the first four steps been met? Which risks of bias have been identified when interpreting the results? Has the individual quality of the included publications been ranked? Have the strengths and weaknesses of the publications been analyzed and has this been interpreted properly in the recommendations?

The systematic reviews are then presented in a consensus conference as the basis for the deliberations and discussions.

When observing the way the quinquennial ITI Consensus Conferences are set up, the following protocol has been developed and followed.

First of all the ITI forms a Steering Committee. The ITI Consensus Conference Steering Committee has overall responsibility for the organization and execution of the ITI Consensus Conference, the Consensus Conference Standardization Meeting and the scientific program of the ITI Annual Conference that usually follows the ITI Consensus Conference. It is the decision-making body for everything connected with these meetings. The Steering Committee advises the Supervisory Group which directly supports the Group Leaders in their activities and with any questions that may arise. The Steering Committee selects the topics for the Consensus Conference, making sure that relevant and current topics are chosen. These are often based on subjects that come from surveys on topics ITI Fellows and Members find relevant and that require collective decision-making.

The Steering Committee appoints a Supervisory Group. The ITI Consensus Conference Supervisory Group is the first point of contact for the Group Leaders. It monitors the progress of the Working Groups and offers support to ensure that the Groups stay on track (in terms of time as well as scientifically) and reports directly to the Steering Committee. The topics to be discussed during the Consensus Conference are presented to the Steering Committee for their approval and amendment.

The Group Leaders are selected by both the Steering Committee and the Supervisory Group. They are responsible for reviewing their Working Group’s papers. The Group Leaders are the first point of contact for the First Authors and support them in their activities and with any questions that may arise. The Group Leaders are in ongoing contact with the Authors to ensure all ‘to do’s’ are delivered on time and that deadlines are met. Group Leaders select the First Authors for their group’s review papers in close collaboration with the Supervisory Group, moderate the sessions of their Working Group at the ITI Consensus Conference and are responsible for presenting the group’s work results (manuscripts) at the end of the ITI Consensus Conference.

Main (First) Authors: The First Authors are responsible for writing the ITI Consensus Conference systematic review articles. First Authors formulate the Focused Questions, define the Systematic Search Strategy for their particular review paper and conduct the literature search. They register the systematic review protocols with the National Institute for Health Research and submit them to the journal in which the proceedings of the ITI Consensus Conference will be published, working closely with their Co-authors. The First Author is the first point of contact for the Co-authors. The First Authors will present the findings of their review paper at the ITI Consensus Conference and at the ITI Annual Conference that usually follows the ITI Consensus Conference.

First Authors of a Consensus Conference review article can have as many Co-authors attached to their paper as they want – it is their intellectual property. However, for organizational reasons, we often limit the number of Co-authors that are invited to the Consensus Conference.