Quality assessment of case-control and cohort studies on injury prevention in China,2001- 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of published case-control and cohort studies on injury prevention in China from 2001 to 2010. Methods Publications between 2001 and 2010 were retrieved from four major Chinese electrical databases and two international electrical databases. Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale( NOS) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of searched articles. Results From 2001 to 2010,the numbers of case-control studies and cohort studies about injury prevention were 84 and 13 in China,respectively. Occupational population,children and adolescents accounted for 45. 2% and 36. 9% of case-control studies,respectively. Multiple injuries were mostly studied,accounting for 71. 4% of case-control studies. 46. 2% of published cohort studies focused on children and adolescents,and92. 3% of them targeted multiple injuries. All of published case-control studies scored over 5. 0 points. The mean quality scores of case-control studies was 6. 1 points( standard deviation: 0. 7 points). Many studies had low scores in the items ofascertainment of exposure,non-response rateandadequate case definition. Most of published cohort studies were scored 6-7 points. The mean quality scores was 6. 3 points( standard deviation: 0. 9 points). The cohort studies had low scores in the item ofassessment of outcome. Conclusions Published case-control studies and cohort studies about injury prevention were limited in China between 2001- 2010. Studies were focused on children,adolescents and occupational population,mostly on multiple injuries. The methodological quality of published case-control studies and cohort studies is relatively high.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".