Bibliographic record
Abstract
In light of increasing interest in evidence-based management, we conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to determine the availability and accessibility of evidence for health care managers; 14 MAs and 61 SRs met the inclusion criteria. Most reviews appeared in medical journals (53%), originated in the United States (29%) or United Kingdom (22%), were hospital-based (55%), and targeted clinical providers (55%). Topics included health services organization (34%), quality/patient safety (17%), information technology (15%), organization/workplace management (13%), and health care workforce (12%). Most reviews addressed clinical topics of relevance to managers; management-related interventions were rare. The management issues were mostly classified as operational (65%). Surprisingly, 96.5% of search results were not on target. A better classification within PubMed is needed to increase the accessibility of meaningful resources and facilitate evidence retrieval. Health care journals should take initiatives encouraging the publication of reviews in relevant management areas.
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 | 0.110 | 0.281 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".