MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743812927 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017437

SystEmatic review and meta-aNAlysis of infanT and young child feeding Practices (ENAT-P) in Ethiopia: protocol

2017· article· en· W2743812927 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold, Md. Atiqul Islam, Nigussie Tadesse Sharew, Shimels Hussien Mohammed, Mulugeta Molla Birhanu, Balewgizie Sileshi Tegegne

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRijksuniversiteit Groningen
KeywordsMedicineFunnel plotPublication biasMeta-analysisScopusBreast feedingSystematic reviewMEDLINEEnvironmental healthDemographyFamily medicinePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Infant and young child feeding (IYCF) is the cornerstone of infant and child survival, healthy growth and development, healthy future generations and national development. In spite of the importance of optimal nutrition in low- and middle-income countries, there has been no review conducted in Ethiopia. Thus, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the national coverage and identify the associated factors of IYCF practices in Ethiopia. Methods PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINHAL, EBSCO, Web of Science and WHO Global Health Library databases will be searched for all available publications from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2017. All published studies on the timely initiation of breast feeding, exclusive breast feeding and timely initiation of complementary feeding practice in Ethiopia will be screened, selected and reviewed. Bibliographies of identified articles and grey literature will be hand-searched as well. Heterogeneity of studies will be quantified using Higgins's method where I 2 statistic >80% indicates substantial heterogeneity. Funnel plots and Egger's regression test will be used to assess potential publication bias. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) will be used to assess the quality of evidence and risk of bias. Meta-analysis and meta-regression will be carried out to estimate the pooled national prevalence rate and an OR of each associated factor of IYCF practices. Narrative synthesis will be performed if meta-analysis is not feasible due to the substantial heterogeneity of studies. Ethics and dissemination Ethical clearance is not required for this study because primary data will not be collected. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an (inter)national research symposium. Systematic review registration This systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017056768.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.020
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.010

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207