Concordance with Guideline Recommendations: previous and more recent Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory Drug prescriptions in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for appropriate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) utilisation focus on preventing NSAID-related gastrointestinal (GI), cardiovascular (CV), congestive heart failure (CHF) and renal adverse events. We compared concordance of NSAID prescriptions with clinical practice guideline recommendations in Quebec, pre and post rofecoxib withdrawal from market. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Quebec Health Insurance Agency (RAMQ). All prescriptions for celecoxib and traditional NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) dispensed to patients ≥50 years of age were evaluated for concordance with clinical practice guidelines. Prescriptions were stratified by time period (pre and post rofecoxib withdrawal) and, GI, CV, CHF and renal risk factors at the dispensing date. Gastro-protective agent (GPA) co-prescriptions were also evaluated. RESULTS: We assessed 1,966,793 celecoxib and 1,743,481 tNSAIDs prescriptions. Of celecoxib prescriptions, 87.2% and 86.5% were appropriate in the post- and pre-periods, respectively, compared to 72.6% and 70.1% of tNSAIDs prescriptions, respectively. In logistic regression, 'appropriateness' of celecoxib prescriptions increased with age, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (OA), and was higher in the post- versus pre-period (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.26); it was lower in women and in patients with higher income. 'Appropriateness' of tNSAID prescriptions decreased in the post-period (0.92, 0.89-0.95), was lower in older persons and those with OA, and higher in women and in higher income patients. Of tNSAID prescriptions that should have received a GPA co-prescription, only 45.6% did. CONCLUSION: Concordance with guideline recommendations increased for celecoxib and decreased for tNSAIDs after rofecoxib withdrawal; GPA co-prescription with tNSAIDs remained suboptimal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".