Variation in pediatric hospitalists' use of proven and unproven therapies: A study from the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undesirable practice variation remains a major concern with the quality of the healthcare system. While care in pediatric hospitalist systems has been demonstrated to be efficient, neither the quality of care nor determinants of variation in pediatric hospitalist systems are well understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure variation in pediatric hospitalists' reported use of common inpatient therapies, and to test the hypothesis that variation in reported use of proven therapies is lower than variation in reported use of unproven therapies. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a survey of pediatric hospitalists in the US and Canada. Respondents reported their frequency of using 14 therapies in the management of common conditions. Each therapy was determined to be of proven or unproven effectiveness using published critical appraisals. Variation in reported use of proven and unproven therapies was compared. RESULTS: 67% (213/320) of surveyed individuals participated. Little variability existed in reported use of albuterol and corticosteroids in asthma (4-6% of respondents reported not often using them) and systemic dexamethasone in bronchiolitis (12% of respondents reported using it more than rarely). Moderate to high variation existed in reported use of all other therapies studied. Variation in reported use of proven therapies was significantly less than variation in reported use of unproven therapies (15.5 +/- 12.5% vs. 44.6 +/- 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in hospitalists' reported management of common pediatric conditions. Variation is significantly lower for strongly evidence-based therapies. To decrease undesirable variation in care, a stronger evidence base for inpatient pediatric care must be built.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".