MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400420884 · doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0165-8

Using the modified Delphi method to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with rotator cuff pathology

2016· article· en· W2400420884 on OpenAlexaff
Breda Eubank, Nicholas G. Mohtadi, Mark R. Lafave, J. Preston Wiley, Aaron J. Bois, Richard S. Boorman, David M Sheps

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Research Methodology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffMedicineDelphi methodGuidelineDelphiHealth careMEDLINEPhysical therapyMedical physicsPathologySurgeryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to the healthcare system with rotator cuff pathology do not always receive high quality care. High quality care occurs when a patient receives care that is accessible, appropriate, acceptable, effective, efficient, and safe. The aim of this study was twofold: 1) to develop a clinical pathway algorithm that sets forth a stepwise process for making decisions about the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff pathology presenting to primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare settings; and 2) to establish clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff pathology to inform decision-making processes within the algorithm. METHODS: A three-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Fourteen experts representing athletic therapy, physiotherapy, sport medicine, and orthopaedic surgery were invited to participate as the expert panel. In round 1, 123 best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" beside each statement, and provide comments. The same voting method was again used for round 2. Round 3 consisted of a final face-to-face meeting. RESULTS: In round 1, statements were grouped and reduced to 44 statements that met consensus. In round 2, five statements reached consensus. In round 3, ten statements reached consensus. Consensus was reached for 59 statements representing five domains: screening, diagnosis, physical examination, investigations, and treatment. The final face-to-face meeting was also used to develop clinical pathway algorithms (i.e., clinical care pathways) for three types of rotator cuff pathology: acute, chronic, and acute-on-chronic. CONCLUSION: This consensus guideline will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff pathology, and assist in clinical decision-making for all healthcare professionals.

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)0.250
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.249
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2500.249
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0110.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.896
GPT teacher head0.706
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
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

Citations432
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Research MethodologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207