Methodological quality of national guidelines for pediatric inpatient conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines help inform standardization of care for quality improvement (QI). The Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings network published a prioritization list of inpatient conditions with high prevalence, cost, and variation in resource utilization across children's hospitals. The methodological quality of guidelines for priority conditions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To rate the methodological quality of national guidelines for 20 priority pediatric inpatient conditions. DESIGN: We searched sources including PubMed for national guidelines published from 2002 to 2012. Guidelines specific to 1 organism, test or treatment, or institution were excluded. Guidelines were rated by 2 raters using a validated tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) with an overall rating on a 7-point scale (7 = the highest). Inter-rater reliability was measured with a weighted kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Seventeen guidelines met inclusion criteria for 13 conditions; 7 conditions yielded no relevant national guidelines. The highest methodological-quality guidelines were for asthma, tonsillectomy, and bronchiolitis (mean overall rating 7, 6.5, and 6.5, respectively); the lowest were for sickle cell disease (2 guidelines) and dental caries (mean overall rating 4, 3.5, and 3, respectively). The overall weighted kappa was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.78-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a group of moderate to high methodological-quality national guidelines for priority pediatric inpatient conditions. Hospitals should consider these guidelines to inform QI initiatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.484 | 0.783 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".