MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512811106 · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0323-4

Self-management interventions to improve skin care for pressure ulcer prevention in people with spinal cord injuries: a systematic review protocol

2016· review· en· W2512811106 on OpenAlexafffund
Justine Baron, Jillian M. Swaine, Justin Presseau, Arlene Aspinall, Susan Jaglal, Barry White, Dalton L. Wolfe, Jeremy Grimshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsParkwood InstituteWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoVancouver General HospitalPraxis Spinal Cord InstituteOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersRick Hansen InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Psychological interventionSpinal cord injuryWound careSystematic reviewMEDLINEAlternative medicineIntensive care medicinePhysical therapySpinal cordNursingPathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a serious, common, lifelong, and costly secondary complication of spinal cord injury (SCI). Community-dwelling people with a SCI can prevent them with appropriate skin care (i.e. pressure relieving activities, skin checks). Adherence to skin care remains suboptimal however, and self-management interventions that focus on improving this have been designed. Little is known on their content, effectiveness, or theoretical basis. The aim of the proposed systematic review is to synthesize the literature on self-management interventions to improve skin care in people with a SCI. Specific objectives are to describe these interventions in relation to their content, effectiveness, theory base, and adherence to reporting guidelines for intervention description. METHODS: The search strategy will combine an electronic search of nine bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Rehabdata, CIRRIE, PEDro, ERIC) and two trial registers with a manual search of relevant reference lists. Predefined eligibility criteria will be applied in a two-phase selection process involving title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening. A data extraction spreadsheet will be applied to included papers. Intervention content will be coded using two taxonomies (behaviour change taxonomy; PRISMS self-management support taxonomy). A validated tool (Theory Coding Scheme) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) will be used to examine theoretical basis and assess adherence to reporting guidelines for intervention description. A small number of heterogeneous studies are likely to be included in this review therefore a narrative synthesis is planned. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will help identify the gaps and priorities to guide future research activities in this area. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033191.

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)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.014
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.011

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.422 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207