The IWJ editor‐in‐chief discusses the World Union Congress 2008 with the chair of meeting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dr Gary Sibbald (GS), president-elect of the World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) and chair of the third meeting, discusses the innovative structure of the meeting with the International Wound Journal. Q: What is unique and innovative about the third congress of the WUWHS? GS: The organising principle of the Toronto 2008 meeting is the evaluation of the evidence base in wound care, which will be considered in the context of efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness to form a framework for best clinical practice. The synthesis of these three major pillars of evidence-informed practice will provide clinicians with a new and comprehensive way of reviewing their practice and ensuring that their care is patient focused. Q: How does the scientific programme support this innovative design? GS: The scientific programme is divided into streams that provide an in-depth review of a range of clinical problems. The keynote addresses will echo the importance of evidence and patient care. An expert panel will discuss the clinical significance of evidence-based medicine, Stephen Lewis will examine health care systems, advocacy and AIDS in Africa, and Marla Shapiro, MD, will focus on life/work balance and her own experiences. The closing plenary session will present highlights from each stream and provide participants with a congress overview. Toronto 2008 also takes a pioneering approach to evidence, choosing to evaluate evidence quality according to the type of information, from guidelines to preclinical data. This methodology allows a broader range of knowledge to be considered in developing a clinical strategy, and it is being used in the development of a comprehensive set of evidence-based summaries on all major topics in wound care. These summaries provide clinicians with rapid access to up-to-date practical information in a quick and easy web-based format. Q: To which health care professionals will this congress be of interest? GS: Toronto 2008 is being hosted by the University of Toronto, with the active participation of the following co-hosting groups: the Canadian Association of Wound Care, Canadian Association of Enterostomal Therapists, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and American Professional Wound Care Association. The scientific programme will be relevant to all clinicians irrespective of professional background, researchers and teachers working in the field of wound healing and tissue repair caring for patients with wounds of all aetiologies. Q: What is next for the WUWHS? GS: Toronto 2008 is a key step in building the WUWHS as an international association. After the congress, we will focus on disseminating the educational toolkits developed at the meeting and sharing expertise between associations. Register now to participate in this ground-breaking congress (www.wuwhs2008.com).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».