MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2297662311 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008002

Impact of point-of-care diagnostics on maternal outcomes in HIV-infected women: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2016· article· en· W2297662311 on OpenAlexafffund
Tivani P. Mashamba-Thompson, Benn Sartorius, Lehana Thabane, Cynthia X. Shi, Paul K. Drain

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersFogarty International CenterNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMcMaster UniversityMassachusetts General Hospital
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMeta-analysisPsychological interventionCochrane LibraryData extractionProtocol (science)MEDLINEHealth careFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePediatricsAlternative medicinePathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Studies indicate substandard diagnostic care, delayed and missed diagnosis as some of the contributing factors to maternal mortality. The clinical impact of point-of-care (POC) diagnostics has been shown in the monitoring and treatment of a variety of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the impact of POC diagnostics on maternal outcomes for HIV-infected women. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review to evaluate the impact of POC diagnostics for improving desired healthcare outcomes for HIV-infected women. The search strategy will involve electronic databases including: Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, published in The Cochrane Library; PubMed; EBSCOhost and LILACS. The studies will be mapped in 2 stages: stage 1 will map studies descriptively by focus and method; stage 2 will involve additional inclusion criteria, quality assessment and data extraction undertaken by 2 reviewers in parallel. Evidence will be synthesised using relevant systematic research tools: meta-analysis and subgroup analysis will be conducted using RevMan and Stata 13 will be used for meta-regressions. We will follow recommendations described in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Intervention Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We anticipate finding a large number of studies on POC diagnostic interventions on maternal outcomes in HIV-infected women, which, once summarised, will be useful to guide future diagnostic interventions. The protocol for the systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO. The study will be disseminated electronically and in print. It will also be presented to conferences related to HIV/AIDS, POC diagnostics and maternal health. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014015439.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.029
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.010

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.396 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→