MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586309681 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckw171.082

Using GRADE to develop the WHO guideline on verifying elimination of human onchocerciasis

2016· article· en· W2586309681 on OpenAlexaff
KJ Thaler, TO Ukety, Peter Mahlknecht, Elie A. Akl, SL Norris, Gautam Biswas, Dirk Engels, Gerald Gartlehner

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOnchocerciasisGuidelineEnvironmental healthMedicineImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Issue The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was initially developed to support guideline development for therapeutic decisions and recently was expanded to address diagnostic questions. We used GRADE for a guideline on the decision to stop mass drug administration (MDA) and to verify elimination of a disease. This is this first documented use of GRADE for this type of guideline. Problem Human onchocerciasis is caused by the parasitic worm Onchocerca volvulus and causes skin disease and “river blindness”. Several previously endemic countries have implemented MDA with ivermectin and successfully achieved elimination. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its 2001 guidelines for the verification of elimination of onchocerciasis. We developed an analytic framework to describe the pathway from MDA to surveillance and verification of elimination of onchocerciasis. We systematically searched for published and unpublished studies and constructed a “linked evidence” chain. We combined evidence from diagnostic accuracy and observational studies and judged the certainty of the evidence using the applicable GRADE method. We then developed GRADE decision tables to summarize all the evidence for benefits and harms, cost, feasibility, equity, and acceptability. Effects In a face-to-face meeting, the guideline panel used the decision tables to make either strong or conditional recommendations for or against each test under consideration. Where available evidence was of very low certainty the panel members relied on their personal knowledge of data that were not publically available (e.g., internal government or WHO field office reports). Lessons Using an analytic framework and GRADE allowed us to present diverse evidence to the guideline panel in a structured manner; however personal knowledge of programme data played a role in panel decisions although it was not captured in the GRADE evidence summaries. Key messages: Providing evidence support for a WHO guideline on elimination of a disease required us to construct an analytic framework and combine multiple study types in a linked evidence chain The role of regular programme generated data (cf published studies) in informing WHO guidelines developed using the GRADE approach should be explored/defined

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)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.388
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.388
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0250.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0110.007
Research integrity0.0090.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.007

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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicParasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207