Effects of clinical pathways for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on patient, professional and systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory syndrome characterized by progressive, partially reversible airway obstruction and lung hyperinflation. COPD has a substantial burden which is seen in both patient quality of life and healthcare costs. One proposed method of minimizing this burden is the implementation of clinical pathways (CPWs). CPWs aim to guide evidence-based practice and improve the interaction between health services. They bring the best available evidence to a range of healthcare professionals by adapting evidence-based clinical guidelines to a local context and detailing the essential steps in the assessment and care of patients. METHODS: The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of CPWs for the treatment or management of COPD. We will screen search hits from search strategies developed for a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) systematic review on the use of CPWs in primary care and a Cochrane EPOC review on the use of CPWs in hospitals. These searches were run in a range of databases. Studies will be screened independently by two reviewers. All studies identified by our search strategy will be considered regardless of study design as long as they meet the operational definition for clinical pathways developed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8, 2010) and focus on the treatment or management of COPD. All included studies will be evaluated for risk of bias utilizing methodologies set out by the Cochrane collaboration. Data regarding patient, professional and systems outcomes will be extracted from all included studies. Data will be presented in both narrative and tabular form. DISCUSSION: The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to identify, assess and synthesise all available evidence on the effects of CPWs regarding the treatment and management of COPD. As a result, this review will provide an evidence base for decision makers regarding the practicality, cost effectiveness, patient benefit and best practices regarding the implementation of CPWs for the care of COPD.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.016 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".