The data presented in this Data in Brief article offers an insight into the scientific literature on conceptual and empirical approaches to public participation and consensus-building. It consists of articles retrieved from the Scopus search engine which feature \"public participation\", \"consensus\", and \"value and attribute\" in the title, abstract, and author keywords. Information on the bibliography is recorded, namely title, author(s), year of publication, and source title. Metadata on how the articles were analyzed is provided in the dataset. From 121 publications, most literature (103) analyzes public participation through case studies. The studies were analyzed according to factors that were identified inductively and grouped in two categories: 1) public participation: actor, method, and level of public participation, and 2) consensus: approaches, conflict. The data is related to the research article entitled \"Public participation and consensus-building in urban planning from the lens of heritage planning: A systematic literature review\". This paper focuses on the public participation factors as the factors on consensus are already explained in the main article. This paper shows which factors of participation were implemented in the analyzed studies. Given that, this article contributes to researchers and practitioners working on public participation because it reveals the diversity of approaches for consensus-building in public participation processes, which help them realize which level of participation they want to achieve and the means to reach it.

OBJECTIVE: The present work aimed to delineate (i) a revised protocol according to recent methodological developments in evidence generation, to (ii) describe its interpretation, the assessment of the overall certainty of evidence and to (iii) outline an Evidence to Decision framework for deriving an evidence-based guideline on quantitative and qualitative aspects of dietary protein intake.
METHODS: A methodological protocol to systematically investigate the association between dietary protein intake and several health outcomes and for deriving dietary protein intake recommendations for the primary prevention of various non-communicable diseases in the general adult population was developed.
RESULTS: The developed methodological protocol relies on umbrella reviews including systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Systematic literature searches in three databases will be performed for each health-related outcome. The methodological quality of all selected systematic reviews will be evaluated using a modified version of AMSTAR 2, and the outcome-specific certainty of evidence for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis will be assessed with NutriGrade. The general outline of the Evidence to Decision framework foresees that recommendations in the derived guideline will be given based on the overall certainty of evidence as well as on additional criteria such as sustainability.
CONCLUSIONS: The methodological protocol permits a systematic evaluation of published systematic reviews on dietary protein intake and its association with selected health-related outcomes. An Evidence to Decision framework will be the basis for the overall conclusions and the resulting recommendations for dietary protein intake.

The Gallbladder Reporting and Data System (GB-RADS) ultrasound (US) risk stratification is proposed to improve consistency in US interpretations, reporting, and assessment of risk of malignancy in gallbladder wall thickening in non-acute setting. It was developed based on a systematic review of the literature and the consensus of an international multidisciplinary committee comprising expert radiologists, gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons, surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists using modified Delphi method. For risk stratification, the GB-RADS system recommends six categories (GB-RADS 0-5) of gallbladder wall thickening with gradually increasing risk of malignancy. GB-RADS is based on gallbladder wall features on US including symmetry and extent (focal vs. circumferential) of involvement, layered appearance, intramural features (including intramural cysts and echogenic foci), and interface with the liver. GB-RADS represents the first collaborative effort at risk stratifying the gallbladder wall thickening. This concept is in line with the other US-based risk stratification systems which have been shown to increase the accuracy of detection of malignant lesions and improve management.

This paper is a summary of the methodology including protocol used to develop evidence-based clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) in Korea, led by the Korean Society of Radiology and the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. This is the first protocol to reflect the process of developing diagnostic guidelines in Korea. The development protocol is largely divided into the following sections: set-up, process of adaptation, and finalization. The working group is composed of clinical imaging experts, and the developmental committee is composed of multidisciplinary experts to validate the methodology. The Korean CIGs will continue to develop based on this protocol, and these guidelines will act for decision supporting tools for clinicians as well as reduce medical radiation exposure.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of cross-cultural adaptation (CCA) of a questionnaire is to achieve equivalence between the original and adapted questionnaire. Here, we aimed to review the state of the art in CCA methods.
METHODS: We reviewed cross-disciplinary bibliographic databases for articles on methods and guidelines for CCA of questionnaires. Articles were first selected by their abstract and title, and then, we retrieved full-text English articles. References of selected articles were searched for additional relevant studies.
RESULTS: We identified 31 guidelines and found no consensus in CCA methods. Most methods included use of committees, focus groups, and back translations. Evidence for the best methods is lacking, although clues indicate that back translation may not be mandatory.
CONCLUSIONS: Several methods are available for CCA of questionnaires. According to experts only, most would achieve comparable results, and choosing one is a matter of preference and logistic. More evidence is needed to support recommendations. Adaptation and validation of a questionnaire are two different processes that should be distinguished and undertaken with care.