MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339761664 · doi:10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000578

An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice

2016· article· en· W2339761664 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Thornley, Darren de, Nathan Evaniew, Forough Farrokhyar, Mohit Bhandari, Michelle Ghert

Bibliographic record

VenueBone and Joint Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationAudience measurementMedicineEvidence-based medicineFamily medicineQuality (philosophy)Sample (material)Medical educationAlternative medicinePsychologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Evidence -based medicine (EBM) is designed to inform clinical decision-making within all medical specialties, including orthopaedic surgery. We recently published a pilot survey of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) membership and demonstrated that the adoption of EBM principles is variable among Canadian orthopaedic surgeons. The objective of this study was to conduct a broader international survey of orthopaedic surgeons to identify characteristics of research studies perceived as being most influential in informing clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 29-question electronic survey was distributed to the readership of an established orthopaedic journal with international readership. The survey aimed to analyse the influence of both extrinsic (journal quality, investigator profiles, etc.) and intrinsic characteristics (study design, sample size, etc.) of research studies in relation to their influence on practice patterns. RESULTS: A total of 353 surgeons completed the survey. Surgeons achieved consensus on the 'importance' of three key designs on their practices: randomised controlled trials (94%), meta-analyses (75%) and systematic reviews (66%). The vast majority of respondents support the use of current evidence over historical clinical training; however subjective factors such as journal reputation (72%) and investigator profile (68%) continue to influence clinical decision-making strongly. CONCLUSION: Although intrinsic factors such as study design and sample size have some influence on clinical decision-making, surgeon respondents are equally influenced by extrinsic factors such as investigator reputation and perceived journal quality.Cite this article: Dr M. Ghert. An international survey to identify the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of research studies most likely to change orthopaedic practice. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:130-136. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000578.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.940
GPT teacher head0.685
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBone and Joint ResearchSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207