Do Case Reports and Case Series Generate Clinical Discoveries About Preeclampsia? A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Ghayath Janoudi,1,2 Mara Uzun (Rada),3 Stephanie T Boyd,1 Deshayne B Fell,2,4 Joel G Ray,5 Angel M Foster,6 Randy Giffen,7 Tammy J Clifford,2,8 Mark C Walker1,2,9– 12 1Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 2School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 3Independent Researcher, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 4Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 5Departments of Medicine, Health Policy Management and Evaluation, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 6Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 7IBM Canada, IBM, Toronto, ON, Canada; 8Canadian Institute of Health Research, Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 9International and Global Health Office, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 10Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 11Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Newborn Care, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 12BORN Ontario, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Mark C Walker, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Box 241, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada, Tel +1 613-798-5555 x76655, Email mwalker@toh.caBackground: Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. The management of preeclampsia has not changed much in more than two decades, and its aetiology is still not fully understood. Case reports and case series have traditionally been used to communicate new knowledge about existing conditions. Whether this is true for preeclampsia is not known.Objective: To determine whether recent case reports or case series have generated new knowledge and clinical discoveries about preeclampsia.Methods: A detailed search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian. Two bibliographic databases were searched through Ovid: Embase and MEDLINE. We selected case reports or case series published between 2015 and 2020, comprising pregnant persons diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia. Two reviewers independently screened all publications. One reviewer extracted data from included studies, while another conducted a quality check of extracted data. We developed a codebook to guide our data extraction and outcomes assessment. The quality of each report was determined based on Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case reports and case series.Results: We included 104 case reports and three case series, together comprising 118 pregnancies. A severe presentation or complication of preeclampsia was reported in 81% of pregnancies, and 84% had a positive maternal outcome, free of death or persistent complications. Only 8% of the case reports were deemed to be of high quality, and 53.8% of moderate quality; none of the case series were of high quality. A total of 26 of the 107 publications (24.3%) included a novel clinical discovery as a central theme.Conclusion: Over two-thirds of recent case reports and case series about preeclampsia do not appear to present new knowledge or discoveries about preeclampsia, and most are of low quality.Keywords: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, study design
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 | 0,025 | 0,247 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».