Overview of reviews in child health: evidence synthesis and the knowledge base for a specific population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews are an evolving form of evidence synthesis. The Cochrane Child Health Field has been producing overviews since 2006, during which time the methods that have been used have changed, both due to the development of guidance within The Cochrane Collaboration and to the decisions made by individual author teams. This paper studies the first 29 overviews published in EBCH. OBJECTIVES: To describe some aspects of the approaches taken in EBCH overviews to producing evidence syntheses relevant to the healthcare needs of children; to highlight the contribution that overviews can make to the knowledge base for treatment for a particular population. METHODS: Data was extracted on: whether the overview included systematic review (SR) data only, or also data from individual trials not present in the included SRs; name(s) of the Cochrane Review Group (CRG) that prepared the included SRs; topics of the overviews as compared to the topics of the included reviews; age-subgroup analyses presented in the overviews. RESULTS: In 23 overviews, all published in 2012, the authors included trial data as well as SR data; two overviews addressed conditions not explicitly addressed by the included reviews; three overviews included pre-specified age-subgroup analyses. DISCUSSION: The aim of clinical relevance has been achieved by means such as: drawing from reviews produced by multiple CRGs; using SR evidence to explore clinically relevant topics that may not match exactly with the topics covered by the SRs; ensuring that the evidence in overviews is as up to date as possible by redoing searches and including trials not incorporated in the included SRs; and, where permitted by the data, using age-subgroup analyses to present the data in a way which matches the stages of childhood development. CONCLUSION: Overview authors are dependent on the nature of the data and methods reported in the included SRs. This suggests a need for further study about how SRs could be conducted in order to facilitate the conduct of overviews.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.382 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads 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".