User's guide to the chiropractic literature-1a: how to use an article about therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The recent paper by Busse et al1Busse J. Guyatt G. Bhandari M. Cassidy J. User's guide to the chiropractic literature-IA how to use an article about therapy.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003; 26: 330-337Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar demonstrated how PubMed could be used to search the published literature as the first step in answering a clinical question. I would like to suggest an alternate database that may have some advantages over PubMed. My letter should not be seen as a criticism of the excellent paper by Busse et al.1Busse J. Guyatt G. Bhandari M. Cassidy J. User's guide to the chiropractic literature-IA how to use an article about therapy.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003; 26: 330-337Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar The series on evidence-based practice is a great initiative, and I am looking forward to reading the next installment. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database, or PEDro, contains clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating physiotherapy treatments. As many treatments are administered by both chiropractors and physiotherapists, the database contains evidence relevant to both professions. The URL is http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/. PEDro has a number of advantages over PubMed when searching for literature to answer a chiropractic clinical question. Unlike PubMed, there are no indexing restrictions and, for example, includes articles from the following chiropractic journals that are not found on PubMed: ICA International Review of Chiropractic, Chiropractic Technique, Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, and American Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. As well, PubMed's earliest record is 1966, whereas PEDro has no date restriction and, for example, archives a 1929 RCT.2Colebrook D. Irradiation and health. A. Ultra-violet irradiation of school children. Medical Research Council; 1929. Special Report Series No. 131. p. 1-47Google Scholar Additionally, the database is restricted to higher levels of evidence on therapies, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, and RCTs, whereas PubMed includes case studies and nonrandomized studies. Lastly, most RCTs on the database have been rated for quality to help users quickly discriminate between trials that are likely to be valid and interpretable and those that are not. Trials on PEDro are rated with the PEDro scale,3Maher C, Sherrington C, Herbert R, Moseley A, Elkins M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 2003;83:713-21Google Scholar with information provided on whether each of the 11 quality items is satisfied. Because there are PEDro scale items corresponding to the 6 questions suggested by Busse et al1Busse J. Guyatt G. Bhandari M. Cassidy J. User's guide to the chiropractic literature-IA how to use an article about therapy.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003; 26: 330-337Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar as important in assessing trial validity, the PEDro database provides useful information to assist critical appraisal of an RCT (Table 1). This last feature is probably unique to the PEDro database.Table 1%Validity questionsValidity question suggested by Busse and colleaguesPEDro itemWere the patients randomized?2Was randomization concealed?3Were all patients analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized?9Were patients in the treatment and control groups similar with respect to known prognostic factors?4Were patients, clinicians, or outcome assessors aware of group allocation?5, 6, 7Was follow-up complete?8 Open table in a new tab The PEDro scale is meant to assist but not replace critical appraisal of the internal validity of a study. As well, the PEDro scale does not address the last 2 important questions posed by Busse et al1Busse J. Guyatt G. Bhandari M. Cassidy J. User's guide to the chiropractic literature-IA how to use an article about therapy.J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003; 26: 330-337Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar: How large was the treatment effect? and Can the results be applied to my patients? These last 2 questions are, of course, best answered by the individual practitioner in consultation with their patient. In responseJournal of Manipulative & Physiological TherapeuticsVol. 27Issue 1Preview Full-Text PDF
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,109 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,025 | 0,021 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,015 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,582 | 0,528 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».