MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096316089 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h72

Completeness of main outcomes across randomized trials in entire discipline: survey of chronic lung disease outcomes in preterm infants

2015· article· en· W2096316089 on OpenAlexaff
John P. A. Ioannidis, Jeffrey D. Horbar, Colleen Ovelman, Y. Brosseau, Kristian Thorlund, Madge E. Buus‐Frank, E. Mills, RF Soll

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersLaura and John Arnold Foundation
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionDiseasePopulationClinical trialCochrane LibraryLung diseaseIntensive care medicinePediatricsPhysical therapyMEDLINELungInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To map the availability of information on a major clinical outcome--chronic lung disease--across the randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews of an entire specialty, specifically interventions in preterm infants. DESIGN: Survey of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION AND METHODS: All Cochrane systematic reviews (as of November 2013) that had evaluated interventions in preterm infants. We identified how many of those systematic reviews had looked for information on chronic lung disease, how many reported on chronic lung disease, and how many of the randomized controlled trials included in the systematic reviews reported on chronic lung disease. We also randomly selected 10 systematic reviews that did not report on chronic lung disease and 10 that reported on any such outcomes and identified whether any information on chronic lung disease appeared in the primary reports of the randomized controlled trials but not in the systematic reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether availability of chronic lung disease outcomes differed by type of population and intervention and whether additional non-extracted data might have been available in trial reports. RESULTS: 174 systematic reviews with 1041 trials exclusively concerned preterm infants. Of those, 105 reviews looked for chronic lung disease outcomes, and 79 reported on these outcomes. Of the 1041 included trials, 202 reported on chronic lung disease at 28 days and 200 at 36 weeks postmenstrual; 320 reported on chronic lung disease with any definition. The proportion of systematic reviews that looked for or reported on chronic lung disease and the proportion of trials that reported on chronic lung disease was larger in preterm infants with respiratory distress or support than others (P<0.001) and differed across interventions (P<0.001). Even for trials on children with ventilation interventions, only 56% (48/86) reported on chronic lung disease. In the random sample, 45 of 84 trials (54%) had no outcomes on chronic lung disease in the systematic reviews, and only 9/45 (20%) had such information in the primary trial reports. CONCLUSIONS: Most trials included in systematic reviews of interventions on preterm infants are missing information on one of the most common serious outcomes in this population. Use of standardized clinical outcomes that would have to be collected and reported by default in all trials in a given specialty should be considered.

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)0.347
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.742
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3470.742
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.026
Bibliometrics0.0470.058
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.305
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.257 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207