Reporting quality of systematic review protocols in environmental and occupational toxicology: a meta-epidemiology study protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Systematic reviews (SR), an evidence-synthesis tool, have been increasingly used in toxicology, for regulatory decision-making and allocation of research funding resources. A critical domain of methodological quality is publicly available in the SR protocol that describes the review methods prior to the review. Earlier work showed that only a small number of published SRs in environmental health had identifiable protocols, but did not evaluate their completeness of reporting. Thus, there is a critical need to assess the number of protocols published in peer-reviewed literature related to environmental/occupational toxicology and how much those SR protocols adhere to current reporting standards such as PRISMA-P.Objective The overarching objective of this review is to assess the reporting quality of SR protocols in environmental and occupational toxicology, published in peer-reviewed journals.Methods and analysis This protocol has been reported following PRISMA-P and PRISMA-S checklist and study selection, data extraction, and reporting quality assessment were piloted by independent reviewers. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE) were selected and will be searched for SR protocols using pre-defined strings. Both title/abstract and full-text screening will follow detailed eligibility criteria based on the population concept context (PCC) framework. We will include peer-reviewed, self-identified SR protocols that aim to assess the adverse effects of environmental and occupational exposures. We will perform data extraction using the form that includes general bibliographic information, exposure, adverse effect information, evidence streams, and guidelines/checklists used in protocol reporting or development. A reporting assessment form consisting of 15 PRISMA-P-based items, of which eleven with identical binary responses (reported vs not reported) address critical elements of SR protocol. Assessments of the eleven quality items will provide data for the analysis of the reporting quality of SR protocols. We employ reporting quality as it provides a practical and suitable approach to evaluating the inclusion of essential SR elements, under the assumption that these elements would be reported if they had been appropriately planned rather than overlooked. The screening and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be discussed if needed with the support of a third reviewer. The data analysis will describe the total number of SR protocols and trends over time, and absolute frequencies and/or proportion of bibliographic information items. It will summarize the reporting quality of all included protocols by a histogram and rank the quality criteria by their level of adherence across the included protocols.
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 | 0,458 | 0,668 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,021 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,027 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,065 | 0,016 |
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 ».