MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1827958960 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008244

Identifying low-value clinical practices in critical care medicine: protocol for a scoping review

2015· review· en· W1827958960 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel J. Niven, Thomas Jared McCormick, Sharon E. Straus, Lianne Jeffs, Henry T. Stelfox

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyProtocol (science)Psychological interventionMEDLINEHealth careAlternative medicineClinical trialEvidence-based medicineIntensive careSystematic reviewFamily medicineMedical educationNursingIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Reducing unnecessary, low-value clinical practice (ie, de-adoption) is key to improving value for money in healthcare, especially among patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) where resource consumption exceeds other medical and surgical populations. Research suggests that low-value clinical practices are common in medicine, however systematically and objectively identifying them is a widely cited barrier to de-adoption. We will conduct a scoping review to identify low-value clinical practices in adult critical care medicine that are candidates for de-adoption. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search the literature to identify all randomised controlled trials or systematic reviews that focus on diagnostic or therapeutic interventions in adult patients admitted to medical, surgical or specialty ICUs, and are published in 3 general medical journals with the highest impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association). 2 investigators will independently screen abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion criteria, and extract data from included citations. Included citations will be classified according to whether or not they represent a repeat examination of the given research question (ie, replication research), and whether the results are similar or contradictory to the original study. Studies with contradictory results will determine clinical practices that are candidates for de-adoption. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our scoping review will use robust methodology to systematically identify a list of clinical practices in adult critical care medicine with evidence supporting their de-adoption. In addition to adding to advancing the study of de-adoption, this review may also serve as the launching point for clinicians and researchers in critical care to begin reducing the number of low-value clinical practices. Dissemination of these results to relevant stakeholders will include tailored presentations at local, national and international meetings, and publication of a manuscript. Ethical approval is not required for this study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.290
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.982
GPT teacher head0.858
Teacher spread0.124 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207