MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916758675 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008316

Protocol for updating a systematic review of randomised controlled trials on the prophylactic use of intravenous immunoglobulin for patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

2015· review· en· W1916758675 on OpenAlexafffund
Juthaporn Cowan, D. William Cameron, Greg Knoll, Jason Tay

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineJadad scaleTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationClinical trialIntensive care medicineRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineImmunologyCochrane Library

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is commonly employed in the management of haematological malignancies. This intervention results in an increased risk of infectious and immune-related complications. Prophylactic immunoglobulin therapy has been used to prevent post-HSCT complications, including infections, with varying efficacy. We sought to update the current evidence supporting the use of immunoglobulins in the modern HSCT era. METHODS/ANALYSIS: Using a structured search strategy, we will perform a systematic review of the literature from MEDLINE, EMBASE and all EBM Reviews databases. We will include randomised clinical trials investigating clinical outcomes of prophylactic polyvalent immunoglobulin or cytomegalovirus (CMV)-specific immunoglobulin or plasma in patients undergoing HSCT. Clinical outcomes will include overall survival, transplant-related mortality, CMV infection, CMV disease, graft-versus-host disease, interstitial pneumonitis/fibrosis and hepatic veno-occlusive disease. Studies that only reported the results of biochemical tests will be excluded. Data will be extracted by two investigators independently. Study quality assessment will be evaluated using a validated five-point system as proposed by Jadad. Trial quality will be further assessed by identifying whether there was adequate allocation concealment. Where appropriate, a meta-analysis will be performed where relative risk will be used as the primary summary measure with 95% CIs. Pooled measures will be calculated for randomised clinical trials using a random-effects model. The Cochrane Q/χ(2) test and I(2) statistic will also be calculated to evaluate heterogeneity. We will also use a visual inspection of a funnel plot to assess potential publication bias. DISCUSSION: This systematic review aims to provide current evidence to justify the use of immunoglobulin prophylaxis in HSCT recipients. We will discuss whether current HSCT guidelines are supported by the current evidence, and whether further trials are needed, given the changing landscape of patients undergoing HSCT and the immunoglobulin manufacturing process. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015016684.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.026
Bibliometrics0.0190.021
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.011

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.173 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207