The People’s Review protocol: planning an innovative study powered by the public
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Systematic reviews provide the best quality evidence about the effectiveness of health treatments. However, systematic reviews and the important role they play in healthcare are not well understood beyond the walls of academia and healthcare. Systematic reviews can help the public make more informed health choices, based on the best available evidence. The People’s Review aims to provide an opportunity to members of the public to plan and complete a full systematic review online in a supportive and engaging manner. It will be a learning-by-doing experience to support the public’s understanding of what reviews are, how they are done, why they matter, and how they can be used to support everyday health decisions. In The People’s Review the public will conduct a full systematic review, deciding the review question, planning the review, working on the parts of the review, and deciding how to share the review findings, in a ‘learning by doing’ process. The review will be conducted online in eight stages using Cochrane Crowd, an existing citizen science platform. The team working behind-the-scenes of The People’s Review will design, produce, and share learning material to support the public’s understanding at each stage of the review. Involving the public in a systematic review online will enable members of the public to understand and use systematic reviews in everyday health choices. It provides the public with a unique ‘learning by doing’ opportunity to get to grips with what systematic reviews are and how they are produced. This article describes how we plan to involve the public in The People’s Review. It is not a protocol for the systematic review itself – this will be published separately once the project has commenced, and the public have decided the review question. It can be difficult to make health decisions today. We are exposed to a huge amount of information available 24/7 on a smartphone. It is easy to find all sorts of news, figures, and advice about healthcare. However, not everything is reliable. Our decisions should be based on the best evidence available — but how do we find it? A systematic review is a method used by researchers, clinicians, and others to find all the evidence that has been published about a healthcare treatment. Systematic reviews use clear and careful steps to find relevant studies, assess the trustworthiness of the studies, and put together the results of those studies. These steps give us the best evidence available about whether a healthcare treatment works or not. However, the methods of systematic reviews can be complex and hard to understand. The People’s Review is an innovative project that will give the public the opportunity to learn about systematic reviews by doing a systematic review. Anyone can take part and help us do a systematic review together. People will learn about what systematic reviews are, how they work and why they matter. We will support the public throughout, so that everyone will learn new skills. In the end, we will have a systematic review led and conducted by the public. This article describes how we plan to involve the public in all the key stages of The People’s Review through an easy-to-use online platform. Our plans were also formulated and decided with members of the public on the planning group.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,590 | 0,056 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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; les deux têtes enseignantes 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 ».