MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2964527730 · doi:10.20381/ruor-22184

Assessment of an Evidence Practice Gap at the Population Level: Screening for Osteoporosis in Ontario

2018· dissertation· en· W2964527730 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lamia Hayawi

Notice bibliographique

RevueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2018
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClinical practice guidelines implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOsteoporosisMedicineGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Osteoporosis is a common health problem and it is increasing in prevalence due to the increase in the aging population. The interest to treat osteoporosis has increased in recent years, due to availability of screening modalities, advances in medications that may prevent osteoporotic fractures. Many studies have showed the high medical and economic burden of the disease on the patients, their caregivers and on the health system. Clinical practice guidelines for management of osteoporosis varied nationally and internationally, and the adherence of physicians to guidelines were always reported as suboptimal, though most studies were for after fragility fracture care gap and vert few looked at the primary screening to identify patients at risk before the occurrence of fractures. This thesis is composed of two manuscripts research project assessing the development and impact of screening for osteoporosis guidelines. The first chapter is an overview of osteoporosis, definition, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment. A follow up discussion of the literature on adherence of physicians to the osteoporosis guidelines, which ends up with the rational for this thesis. The first paper is a systematic review to identify guidelines for screening for osteoporosis from 2002-2016 (Chapter 2). We assessed the quality of these guidelines using the AGREE II and IOM standards, compared between the two tools, and assessed if the quality has changed over time. We extracted recommendations in key areas with summary of the systems that were used to assign the level of evidence and strength of recommendations. We found that the quality of guidelines has varied greatly between different countries with no significant change over time. The recommendations and systems for level of evidence were variable and all this may create confusion to clinicians. In the second paper, we used an interrupted time series design to assess the effect of three clinical practice guidelines for screening for osteoporosis in Ontario on the baseline bone mineral density (BMD) testing for older adults 65 years of age and above using administrative data by ICES from 1998-2006. All three guidelines recommend baseline BMD testing for this age population. In addition, we analyzed the pattern of repeated testing in accordance with the latest guideline. We have found low rates of baseline BMD testing with a decreasing pattern of testing. The last guideline in 2010 had gradually increased the trend of BMD testing, though it was a very small change. Stratified analyses by sex showed that the decrease in the total BMD testing is due to decrease in the testing for female population while there is an increasing trend of BMD testing in male population. CPG by Osteoporosis Canada in 2010 caused an immediate reduction in the BMD testing for female, yet, over a period of time, the guideline increased the BMD testing. For male population; the 2002 CPG had immediately increased the BMD testing, while over time this trend has decreased. Despite the low baseline BMD testing by physicians, there is an over use of repeated BMD testing in the low risk population, especially the annual and the 2 yearly BMD repeats. In conclusion: This research project found a varied quality of guideline development and reporting of guidelines for osteoporosis screening, and no improvement in the quality over time (2002-2016). Several systems were used to assign the level of evidence and strength of recommendations with conflicting recommendations between different health organizations in the same country such as in Canada. Many tools are available to appraise the quality of guidelines, however, comparing between two tools (AGREE II & IOM standards) showed that they may give conflicting results for guidelines quality. There is no effect of guidelines for screening for osteoporosis on the ordering of BMD testing to screen adults 65 years and above living in Ontario between 1998- 2016. A small increase the rate of baseline BMD testing followed the release of the 2010 guideline. For male population the 2002 guideline showed an evident immediate and gradual effect over time on the rate of baseline BMD testing ordering for male population. Despite the low baseline BMD testing rates for adults 65 years and above, there is an unnecessary repeated BMD testing for low risk population in Ontario between 2011-2016 which is not in compliance to the latest guideline for screening for osteoporosis.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,038
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,194
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,914
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,621

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0380,194
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0110,018
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,002
Communication savante0,0060,003
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,593
Tête enseignante GPT0,574
Écart entre enseignants0,018 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Même sujetClinical practice guidelines implementationTravaux en français237 207