<i>Practice Guidelines:</i> Pedantic Pontification or Pragmatic Progress? 2003 Ryley-Jeffs Memorial Lecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development and use of practice guidelines is one strategy to assist health professionals in translating research into practice. There has been a significant growth in the number of practice guidelines developed, with the increased focus on justifying health care costs and demonstrating outcomes. Quality and influence on established practice, however, has sometimes been lacking. Recognizing both the importance of practice guidelines and some of the controversies surrounding their quality and use, Dietitians of Canada convened a task group to make recommendations on future development. They reviewed the practice guideline programs of others and identified the key elements needed to ensure any dietetics-produced guidelines would be credible, feasible and applicable to clinical counselling, administration and community health promotion. In this memorial lecture, the chair of that task group briefly reviews the history of dietetic practice guidelines, new innovations in systematic review and consensus development methods, and specifically the Delphi process used to develop a new Dietetic Practice Guidelines Framework. The 34 elements of the framework direct overall management of the guideline development process, including topic nomination, systematic literature review, group judgment, and pilot testing.
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 | 0.046 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".