MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997677022 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095369

A Systematic Critical Appraisal of Non-Pharmacological Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II

2014· review· en· W1997677022 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucie Brosseau, Prinon Rahman, Stéphane Poitras, Karine Toupin‐April, Gail Paterson, Christine Smith, Judy King, Lynn Casimiro, Gino De Angelis, Laurianne Loew, Sabrina Cavallo, Jessica Mc Ewan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalLibrary and Archives CanadaArthritis SocietyDalhousie UniversityInstitute of Population and Public HealthMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersInstitute of Musculoskeletal Health and ArthritisCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchArthritis Health Professions Association
KeywordsMedicineCritical appraisalCLARITYQuality (philosophy)Scope (computer science)StakeholderAlternative medicinePhysical therapyPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to summarize evidence about the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and facilitate the uptake of evidence-based knowledge by consumers, health professionals, health administrators and policy makers. The objectives of this review was to assess the quality of CPGS on non-pharmacological management of RA with a standardized and validated instrument--the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and summarize the key recommendations from these CPGs. Scientific literature databases from 2001 to 2013 were systematically searched and a total of 13 CPGs for RA was identified. Only a minority of AGREE II domains were effectively addressed by the CPGS. Scope and purpose was effectively addressed in 10 out of 13 CPGs, stakeholder involvement in 11 CPGs, rigor of development in 6 CPGs, clarity/presentation in 9 CPGs, editorial independence in 1 CPGs, and applicability in none of the CPGs. The overall quality of the included CPGs according to the 7-point AGREE II scoring system was 4.8 ± 1.04. Patient education/self-management, aerobic, dynamic and stretching exercises were the commonly recommended for the non-pharmacological management of RA by the high-quality CPGs. The general clinical management recommendations tended to be similar among high-quality CPGs. Non-pharmacological management interventions were superficially addressed in more than half of the selected CPGs. CPGs creators should use the AGREE II criteria when developing guidelines. Innovative and effective methods of CPGs implementation to users are needed to ultimately enhance the quality of life of arthritic individuals. In addition, it was difficult to establish between strongly recommended, recommended and weakly recommended, as there is no consensus between the strength of the recommendations between the appraised CPGs.

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)0.247
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.584
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2470.584
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.013
Bibliometrics0.0310.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.678
GPT teacher head0.635
Teacher spread0.044 · 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.

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

Citations65
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207