MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463167462 · doi:10.1097/pcc.0000000000000475

Pilot Randomized Trials in Pediatric Critical Care

2015· review· en· W2463167462 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Duffett, Karen Choong, Lisa Hartling, Kusum Menon, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Critical Care Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialObservational studyResearch designMEDLINEPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Pilot trials are smaller randomized controlled trials conducted to inform the design and assess the feasibility of a large-scale trials. The objectives of this systematic review were to describe pilot trials in pediatric critical care, their conclusions about the clinical implications of the results, and the need for future research and to determine the frequency of large follow-up trials. DATA SOURCES: The Evidence in Pediatric Intensive Care database (http://epicc.mcmaster.ca), a comprehensive repository of published pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials and the World Health Organization's Clinical Trials Registry Platform. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials described in the publication as "pilot," "feasibility," "proof-of-concept," "exploratory," "phase 2," "vanguard," or "preliminary." DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 32 pilot trials (12.2% of all pediatric critical care randomized controlled trials) published before July 2014, varying in size from 6 to 165 children. Pilot trials were significantly smaller than those not described as pilots, but other key characteristics were not significantly different. The authors of 16 publications (48.4%) included explicit and specific conclusions about the design or feasibility of larger trials based on the results of the pilot trial. In 20 publications (64.5%), the authors made conclusions about clinical efficacy based on results of the pilot trial. Four of the 32 pilot trials (12.9%) led to larger trials, two of which have been published. CONCLUSIONS: Published pilot trials in pediatric critical care often focus on clinical outcomes. They uncommonly report explicit feasibility outcomes, criteria for success, or rationale for the pilot sample size. These pilot trials infrequently lead to larger trials. Understanding and addressing the reasons for this are key to the success of pediatric critical care research.

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)0.323
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.652
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3230.652
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.834
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.198 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Critical Care MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207