MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3083621879 · doi:10.4103/sjg.sjg_455_20

Response to Almalki et al.: Resuming endoscopy services during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· letter· en· W3083621879 sur OpenAlexaff
Majid A. Almadi, AbdulrahmanM Aljebreen, Nahla Azzam, Faisal Batwa

Notice bibliographique

RevueSaudi Journal of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Établissements canadiensMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePandemicHealth careWelfarePosition statementCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicinePolitical scienceLawInternal medicineDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We thank Almalki et al.[1] for their insightful comments on the current situation of endoscopy services in the country, and we clearly share their concerns. The repercussions of the pandemic have been echoed not only in the original position statement from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association (SGA)[2] but also by numerous other societies. The pandemic has resulted in significant restrictions to patient care in the form of hospital visits, which adds insult to injury since challenges to access specialized care existed even before the pandemic.[3] The pandemic has also been a source of anxiety for patients and healthcare providers alike as depicted in a series of papers in the Journal in the last few months.[4567] To be clear, the overall aim of the SGA statement was to facilitate performing procedures during the critical phase of the pandemic and to provide care to the most needy in the face of a looming shutdown of services. The statement was never intended to curtail the provision of services, but rather to ensure the safety and welfare of healthcare workers. It was also in-line with the recommendations of various other societies around the world like the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA),[8] Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE),[9] the chapter of gastroenterologists in Singapore,[10] as well as others.[11] To the contrary, we had hoped that this statement would increase the procedures that would be performed in the country during this period rather than the counterfactual cancellation of all procedures. Also, the statement was published in a time of great uncertainty, with constraints on personal protective equipment (PPE) as well as disruption of supply chains. It was drafted by a group of local experts from various regions of the country and from different healthcare sectors with the aim of incorporating the various challenges that were being experienced at the time, and to our knowledge, was widely accepted and welcomed. Moreover, this could also be a potential silver lining in this pandemic, to use our resources in a more cost-efficient, beneficial manner, as there is a definite increase in demand and more limited supply due to infection control constraints. This should lead to strategies that improve aspects focusing on procedures with an anticipated higher yield, as well as focusing on improving bowel preparation quality[1213] and avoiding cancelling procedures and possibly shifting, even momentarily, from open-access systems to more controlled scheduling of patients after meticulous screening of requests. We have clearly demonstrated in the past that a significant proportion of those referrals in an open-access system were inappropriate.[14] Saudi Arabia has recently witnessed a diminishing number of active and critical COVID-19 infected individuals. In this context, as a nudge towards re-instating endoscopy services, we delineated the current adapted practice at our center in Riyadh.[15] We have also participated in the development of a more detailed guideline with international representation on the management of endoscopic services.[16] This document has the value of bringing in experts from different areas that have been affected to variable degrees by the pandemic, and gives a balanced practical view while covering topics of point-of-care testing, and recommendations for services before, during, and after an encounter in endoscopy units. Additionally, the position statement of APSDE addresses a practical phased re-instatement of endoscopy services based on the resource availability in each institution as well as the burden of the disease in the community.[9] Ultimately, the decision of re-instating endoscopy services will depend on each institution's situation in terms of the availability of PPE, testing capacity and turn-around time, local case loads, the case-mix of the patient-population served, logistical matters, and numerous other factors that would be an oversimplification to have a document describe. Nonetheless, we believe that the proposal that Azzam et al.[15] had presented is a good backbone to adapt when planning on scaling-up endoscopy services from the status existing during the pandemic. Furthermore, it is only natural that we learn as we go forward, and try to make the best out of our current situation. The pandemic had created immense debate around how to best tackle problems, and there have been numerous proposals from various “experts”, but when the dust settles, it usually ends along the lines that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle describes as being “easy to be wise after the event.” Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,045
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,058

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,074
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,004
Communication savante0,0060,008
Science ouverte0,0040,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0450,052
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,006

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 Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,381
Écart entre enseignants0,325 · 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'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSaudi Journal of GastroenterologyMême sujetCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsTravaux en français237 207