MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980384810 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.932448

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of conditions related to traffic collisions: a systematic review by the OPTIMa Collaboration

2014· review· en· W1980384810 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica J. Wong, Pierre Côté, Heather M. Shearer, Linda Carroll, Hainan Yu, Sharanya Varatharajan, Danielle Southerst, Gabrielle van der Velde, Craig Jacobs, Anne Taylor‐Vaisey

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthToronto Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashPsychological interventionSystematic reviewEvidence-based practiceCritical appraisalAnxietyMedicineBest practiceMEDLINEPoison controlPhysical therapyPsychologyMedical emergencyPsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality and synthesize recommendations of evidence-based guidelines for the management of common traffic injuries. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and best evidence synthesis of guidelines on musculoskeletal injuries, psychological disorders and mild traumatic brain injuries (MTBI) from 1995 to 2012. Independent reviewers critically appraised eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) criteria. RESULTS: We retrieved 9863 citations. Of those, 16 guidelines were eligible for critical appraisal and eight were scientifically admissible (four targeting whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), one addressing anxiety and three addressing MTBI). The inadmissible guidelines had inadequate literature searches, inexplicit links between evidence and recommendations, and ambiguous recommendations. The literature used to develop most of the admissible guidelines was outdated. Major recommendations included: (1) Advice, education and reassurance for all conditions; (2) Exercise, return-to-activity, mobilization/manipulation, analgesics and avoiding collars for WAD; (3) Psychological first aid, pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy as first-line interventions for anxiety; and (4) Monitoring for complications, discharge criteria, advice upon discharge from the emergency room and post-discharge care for MTBI. CONCLUSION: Fifty percent of appraised guidelines were scientifically admissible, but most need updating. Most guidelines focus on WAD and MTBI. Few guidelines make comprehensive recommendations on a wide range of consequences from traffic collisions. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The core components of a program of care designed to manage common traffic injuries (whiplash-associated disorders - WAD, anxiety and mild traumatic brain injuries) should include advice, education and reassurance. Depending on the condition, the following specific interventions should be considered: (1) WAD: exercise, early return to activity, mobilization/manipulation, analgesics and avoidance of collars; (2) Anxiety: psychological first aid, pharmacotherapy and cognitive behavioral therapy; and (3) Mild traumatic brain injuries: use of specific discharge criteria (including no factors warranting hospital admission and support structures for subsequent care), education upon discharge from emergency room and post-discharge care (e.g. monitoring for complications, gradual return to normal activity based on tolerance of individual). The methodological quality of guidelines varies greatly; therefore, guideline developers need to adhere to established methodological standards and conform to the evaluation criteria outlined in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.227
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.227
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.014
Bibliometrics0.0440.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.419 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207