MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418953994

Effects of the 1994 Canadian Cardiovascular Society clinical practice guidelines for congestive heart failure.

2002· article· en· W2418953994 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ross T. Tsuyuki, Margaret L. Ackman, Terrence J. Montague

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureClinical PracticeAngiotensin-converting enzymeStakeholderIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineFamily medicineBlood pressure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 1994, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) issued practice guidelines for the management of congestive heart failure (CHF), which strongly recommended the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To compare a strategy of active implementation of the CCS guidelines for CHF with the usual passive approach on the use of ACE inhibitors in hospitalized patients with CHF. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in eight Canadian hospitals close to the time of release of the CCS guidelines for CHF in the summer of 1994. The patients comprised those who were admitted to the participating hospitals with a diagnosis of CHF during the study period. Active dissemination included stakeholder development of pocket cards outlining an algorithm for the management of CHF based on the CCS guidelines and was conducted at the two Edmonton, Alberta hospitals. The cards were widely disseminated in conjunction with a series of workshops and presentations. Passive dissemination occurred at six other hospitals, and involved only the distribution of the CCS guidelines in the usual fashion (with no structured dissemination program). The primary outcome measured was the use of ACE inhibitors in the six- to 12-month period before the release of the CCS guidelines, compared with after the release in the active and passive groups. RESULTS: In the active group, hospital records of 1170 patients with CHF were reviewed before, and 1279 were reviewed after, the release of the CCS guidelines. In the passive group, 3436 were reviewed before, and 1912 were reviewed after the release of the guidelines. ACE inhibitor use did not change significantly in the active group (52.4% before versus 50.9% after) or in the passive group (53.4% before versus 56.5% after). CONCLUSIONS: Neither the active nor passive approaches to the dissemination of the CCS guidelines for CHF had any impact on the use of ACE inhibitors in hospitalized patients with CHF. Further efforts to package, deliver and evaluate guidelines are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.286
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207