Mapping of care and guidance on Aortic Aneurysm to support educational technology for Elderly Patients– Scoping Review Protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Brazilian project - Scope Review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology Protocol: I. Study Type: This is a scoping review structured according to the methodological guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and reported following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). II. Review Question: The review question was developed using the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy: Population (P): elderly patients with aortic aneurysm Concept (C): health literacy guidelines and recommendations, with potential to inform the development of educational technology Context (C): hospital settings (specifically cardiology wards) Therefore, this review seeks to answer the following question: “What health literacy guidelines and recommendations for elderly patients with aortic aneurysm are available in the literature, to support the development of educational technology in hospital settings?” III. Eligibility Criteria: All studies with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed approaches, available in open access, published, with participants aged 60 and over, and published from 2020 onwards will be included. Studies that address clinical practices, care protocols, strategies, guidelines, or specific recommendations for the management of patients with aortic aneurysm in hospital settings will be considered. The selection will be restricted to studies in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. Editorials, opinion articles, letters to the editor, and duplicate publications will be excluded.. IV. Information Source and Search Strategy: To identify relevant studies, searches will be conducted in the following electronic databases: BVS, MEDLINE/PubMed, and Embase. In addition, a grey literature search will be performed using BDTD (Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations), including theses and dissertations. Primary studies will be included, as well as guidelines, protocols, and official documents from the Ministry of Health (MS), the Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC), and the Brazilian Society of Cardiovascular Surgery (SBCCV). The search will be conducted in the current month of July; however, a preliminary search was carried out in April for an initial exploration to gain a better understanding of the topic and to check if similar research already exists. The search strategy will include descriptors from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Health Sciences Descriptors (DeCS), combined with alternative terms using the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR”. V. Study Selection Process: The studies will be made available in electronic RIS (Research Information Systems) file format, imported into Rayyan to remove duplicates and then for screening and selection of documents for the review study, reducing errors and/or biases. The screening and selection process will be conducted by two independent and blinded reviewers, in two distinct phases. In phase 1, the titles and abstracts will be read. In phase 2, the selected studies will be read in full, assessing their ability to address the guiding research question, in order to compose the final sample for the scoping review. In cases of disagreement between the reviewers, a third reviewer will be consulted. The final sample of studies selected for review will be imported into EndNote for reference management and bibliographic formatting. Before the screening and data extraction stages, a meeting will be held with the reviewers to present the protocol, clarify the eligibility criteria and standardize the data extraction form, aiming to ensure consistency and minimize discrepancies. VI. Data Extraction Process for Selected Studies Data extraction from the selected studies will be conducted through a structured form to facilitate evidence synthesis, using an Excel spreadsheet adapted for this study based on the form recommended by JBI. The characteristics to be extracted include: Author(s), Article title, Year (publication), Country of origin, Objective of the article, Type of study, Categories, Main results found, Conclusion, Limitation, Relevant observations, Reference citation (Vancouver), Reason for the decision (include/exclude and justification). Methodological assessment of the studies will not be required, as this is a scoping review, which aims to map the available evidence rather than identify the best available evidence to answer a specific question. VII. Data Synthesis: At the end of the process, a cross-check of the extracted study information will be performed, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. The data will then be organized into tables and charts, including a qualitative (narrative) synthesis of the specific care/guidance for elderly patients with aneurysm settings as proposed in each study. All scientific works used will be properly cited and referenced in accordance with copyright regulations.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».