PD49-06 ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL AND REPORTING QUALITY OF CLINICAL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES IN PAEDIATRIC UROLOGY: CAN WE BUILD PRACTICES ON CONTEMPORARY HIGHEST LEVELS OF EVIDENCE?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics: Health Services & Population Research (PD49)1 Apr 2019PD49-06 ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL AND REPORTING QUALITY OF CLINICAL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES IN PAEDIATRIC UROLOGY: CAN WE BUILD PRACTICES ON CONTEMPORARY HIGHEST LEVELS OF EVIDENCE? Fardod O'Kelly*, Keara De Cotiis, Luis Braga, Armando Lorenzo, and Martin Koyle Fardod O'Kelly*Fardod O'Kelly* More articles by this author , Keara De CotiisKeara De Cotiis More articles by this author , Luis BragaLuis Braga More articles by this author , Armando LorenzoArmando Lorenzo More articles by this author , and Martin KoyleMartin Koyle More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556869.45800.5fAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a comprehensive summary of research studies and are used to assess clinical evidence, form policy and construct guidelines. This is pertinent in childhood surgery with issues of consent, and condition prevalence. Our aims were to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews, and to identify how these reviews might guide clinical practice amongst those conditions most commonly encountered and managed by paediatric urology residents and fellows METHODS: A systematic search of the English literature was performed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on clinical paediatric urology (1/1/2000-7/9/2018) to include common paediatric urological conditions managed by paediatric urology residents/fellows. To these reviews, AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were applied. Univariate linear regression and descriptive statistical methods were performed RESULTS: From an initial literature review of 389 articles, 101 were included in the analysis. Inter-reviewer agreement was high (κ = 0.92). 70% systematic reviews/meta-analyses were published since 2013. The overall impact factor was 3.38 (0.83 – 17.58), with adherence to AMSTAR-2 criteria 48.46% and PRISMA criteria 73.32%. From a methodological perspective, 62.5% reviews were of poor quality, with 37.5% of fair quality, 50% reviews were found to have good quality reporting CONCLUSIONS: Despite the continued increase of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology from which many guidelines are based, a significant number contain poor methodology, and to a lesser extent poor reporting quality. Journals should consider having specific “a priori” criteria based on checklists prior to publication of manuscripts in order to ensure the highest possible reporting quality Source of Funding: None Toronto, Canada; Hamilton, Canada; Toronto, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e907-e908 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Fardod O'Kelly* More articles by this author Keara De Cotiis More articles by this author Luis Braga More articles by this author Armando Lorenzo More articles by this author Martin Koyle More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0,795 | 0,945 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,016 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,036 | 0,032 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,042 | 0,026 |
| Science ouverte | 0,014 | 0,022 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,019 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,031 | 0,017 |
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; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».