Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To review and evaluate the basic contents and development of the current global clinical guidelines for lung cancer practice so as to provide useful information for domestic study. Methods Six databases including PubMed (to June 2008) and relevant websites (both in Chinese and English) were searched. Articles were screened according to the prede ned inclusion and exclusion criteria. The number of clinical guidelines was counted and the quality of guidelines was also assessed. Results A total of 208 articles were found to be clinical guideline-related and 133 were nally included. Of those, 78 were original versions and 55 were updated versions. And 86 articles mentioned guideline development methodology. The guidelines were issued by 14 countries/regions, mainly by USA (39.85%), Canada (24.81%) and France (8.27%). The earliest one was published by USA in 1984. 125 guidelines were issued by oncological or thoracic institutions, and the other 8 were not issued by specialized institutions or not speci ed. The 133 articles were classi ed into 3 major clinical categories: synthesis (24), multi-subject (21) and single-subject (88). As for quality evaluation, the average score of all guidelines was 72.09 (full score 100). The highest average score was found in 1996 which was 83.50, and the lowest in 1997 (66.80). The guidelines issued by France had the highest average score (79.80), and Japan, with the lowest average score (48.00). The average score of 4 categories of lung cancer were 73.54 (non-small- cell lung cancer), 65.74 (lung cancer), 74.72 (small-cell lung cancer), and 76.00 (bronchogenic lung cancer), respectively. Conclusion The number of clinical guidelines showed an increasing trend. Most guidelines were issued by developed countries. The subjects included in the synthetic guidelines showed an expanding trend covering about 20 subjects from prevention to palliative care. A trend of multi-country contribution to the guidelines development and revision was noted.Researches became more focused on di erent types and stages. Evidence-based methodology was accepted globally in the clinical guideline development, but unfortunately very few applied the method of health technology assessment. China issued only 2 original guidelines, which were based on literature review and expert opinions, respectively. Due to the limitation of language restriction, inaccessibility of full-text articles and unavailability of authorized and speci c quality evaluation protocols, the conclusions of this study should be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0,074 | 0,251 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,027 | 0,016 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 ».