MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604404026 · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0468-9

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012–2016: protocol for a systematic review

2017· review· en· W2604404026 on OpenAlex
Dawid Pieper, Michelle Pollock, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Roland Brian Büchter, Lisa Hartling

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Psychological interventionEpidemiologyHealth careSystematic reviewAlternative medicineMEDLINEFamily medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Overviews of systematic reviews (overviews) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarize the results of multiple systematic reviews (SRs) for a given condition or public health problem. Two prior descriptive analyses of overviews found substantial variation in the methodological approaches used in overviews, and deficiencies in reporting of key methodological steps. Since then, new methods have been developed so it is timely to update the prior descriptive analyses. The objectives are to: (1) investigate the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 100 overviews published from 2012 to 2016 and (2) compare these recently published overviews (2012-2016) to those published prior to 2012 (based on the prior descriptive analyses). METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, and CDSR will be searched for overviews published 2012-2016, using a validated search filter for overviews. Only overviews written in English will be included. All titles and abstracts will be screened by one review author; those deemed not relevant will be verified by a second person for exclusion. Full-texts will be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers independently. Of those deemed relevant, a random sample of 100 overviews will be selected for inclusion. Data extraction will be either performed by one reviewer with verification by a second reviewer or by one reviewer only depending on the complexity of the item. Discrepancies at any stage will be resolved by consensus or consulting a third person. Data will be extracted on the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of each overview. Data will be analyzed descriptively. When data are available for both time points (up to 2011 vs. 2012-2016), we will compare characteristics by calculating risk ratios or applying the Mann-Whitney test. DISCUSSION: Overviews are becoming increasingly valuable evidence syntheses, and the number of published overviews is increasing. However, former analyses found limitations in the conduct and reporting of overviews. This update of a recent sample of overviews will inform whether this has changed, while also identifying areas for further improvement. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The review will not be registered in PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with health-related outcomes.

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.

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)0.714
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.845
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: Reporting
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7140.845
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.2080.043
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0070.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.941
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.248 · 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