An important first step in the identification of potential peer reviewers was to determine the appropriate constituencies from which to draw our reviewers. Although the categories we finally settled on are fairly self-explanatory, for clarification we note the following details about the categories and the number of reviewers asked to participate in this effort.

Individual experts primarily engaged in HIV-related research (as contrasted with dental practice per se) were included in Category I (dental researchers). Experts doing research from the perspective of clinical practice and healthcare delivery, because they are based in healthcare delivery organizations and are likely to be involved to some extent in patient care, we judged to be in Category II (clinical experts). In Category III (professional representatives), we included representatives of dental professional organizations. Representatives of patients, dental care consumers, and the public at large we included in Category IV (consumer representatives). We assigned representatives of organizations that are likely users of evidence reports to Category V. These include dental trade associations and manufacturers, quality assurance organizations, health plans and insurance companies, and purchaser and employer groups. The selection of representatives from Category VI (Government agency) rests with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and its collaborators at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). Clearly, these agencies, as well as others providing dental services to a variety of populations, are also an important constituency. We believe that these six categories represent the full range of dental care experts, users, and patient groups that should be involved in reviewing this particular evidence report on the management of dental patients who are HIV positive. The names of specific peer reviewers are listed at the end of this appendix.

Not including representatives of Government agencies, we selected 15 organizations or independent peer reviewers from the first five categories noted above. The individuals included five members of the Technical Expert Advisory Group (TEAG) (one of our TEAG members was unavailable to participate in the peer review process as a result of a scheduling conflict) because they played a major role throughout the project in conceptualizing the work and reviewing materials. Moreover, we believed that comments at this stage from TEAG members, as active professionals in the field, would be extremely valuable. The remainder of the peer reviewer group were identified by issuing an invitation to the organizations' executive officers/directors (e.g., president, chairperson) asking them to nominate a peer reviewer or by soliciting nominations from the TEAG or our project consultants. A preliminary (and longer) list of organizations, agencies, or individuals was submitted to the AHRQ Task Order Officer and the NIDCR liaison person for this project for review, suggestions for additional nominees, comments, and approval. We then contacted all potential peer reviewers to determine their willingness to serve as peer reviewers, alerting them to the fact that this service would require them to prepare formal written reviews according to the checklist developed for this evidence report. Their comments and suggestions form the basis of our revisions to the draft evidence report.