Review: The effect of audit and feedback on guideline adherence and patient outcomes is limited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club19 February 2013Review: The effect of audit and feedback on guideline adherence and patient outcomes is limitedCarl van Walraven, MD, FRCPC, MScCarl van Walraven, MD, FRCPC, MScUniversity of Ottawa/Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (C.V.W.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-02011 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationIvers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22696318Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: References1 van Walraven C, Austin P, Forster AJ. Urgent readmission rates can be used to infer differences in avoidable readmission rates between hospitals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1124-30. [PMID: 22809617] Google Scholar2 van Walraven C, Oake N, Coyle D, Taljaard M, Forster AJ. Changes in surrogate outcomes can be translated into clinical outcomes using a Monte Carlo model. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1306-15. [PMID: 19545974] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: Carl van Walraven, MD, FRCPC, MScAffiliations: University of Ottawa/Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (C.V.W.)This article was published at Annals.org on 5 February 2013. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byDutch women in midwife-led care at the onset of labour: which pain relief do they prefer and what do they use? 19 February 2013Volume 158, Issue 4Page: JC11KeywordsBehaviorGrading of Recommendations Assessment Development and EvaluationHealth careHealth care providersInterquartile rangeMethicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureusPatientsResidencyRisk managementSystematic reviews ePublished: 19 February 2013 Issue Published: 19 February 2013 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2013 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.050 | 0.359 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".