MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adapting National and International Leg Ulcer Practice Guidelines for Local Use

2005· review· en· W2021423026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityNational Association of Friendship CentresBlackberry (Canada)Victorian Order of NursesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of OttawaMinistry of Health and Long Term Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialEvidence-based medicineEvidence-based practiceMEDLINEBest practiceAdaptation (eye)Clinical PracticeQuality (philosophy)Quality managementService (business)NursingAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief BACKGROUND: Because of growing resources devoted to individuals requiring community care for leg ulcers, the authority responsible for home care in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, established and evaluated a demonstration leg ulcer service. In an effort to provide current and evidence-based care, existing leg ulcer clinical practice guidelines were identified and appraised for quality and suitability to the new service. PROCESS: The Practice Guideline Evaluation and Adaptation Cycle guided development of a local protocol for leg ulcer care, which included: (1) systematically searching for practice guidelines, (2) appraising the quality of identified guidelines using a validated guideline appraisal instrument, (3) conducting a content analysis of guideline recommendations, (4) selecting recommendations to include in the local protocol, and (5) obtaining practitioner and external expert feedback on the proposed protocol. Updating the protocol followed a similar process. RESULTS: Of 19 identified leg ulcer practice guidelines, 14 were not evaluated because they did not meet the criteria (ie, treatment-focused guidelines, written in English and developed after 1998). Of the 5 remaining guidelines, 3 were fairly well developed and made similar recommendations. The level of evidence supporting specific recommendations ranged from randomized clinical trial evidence to expert opinion. By comparing the methodologic quality and content of the guidelines, the Task Force reached consensus regarding recommendations appropriate for local application. Two additional guidelines were subsequently identified and incorporated into the local protocol during a scheduled update. CONCLUSIONS: Local adaptation of international and national guidelines is feasible following facilitation of the Practice Guidelines Evaluation and Adaptation Cycle. To address the need for resources devoted to individuals requiring community care for leg ulcers, the authority responsible for home care in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, established and evaluated a demonstration leg ulcer service. The authors discuss how existing leg ulcer clinical practice guidelines were identified and appraised for quality and suitability to the new service.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.353 · 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