MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761257358 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.6.e35-91

93: Quality Appraisal of Canadian Guidelines on the Perinatal Care of Potential Extremely Premature Infants: How do they Rate?

2014· article· en· W2761257358 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory P. Moore, Brigitte Lemyre, Thierry Daboval, Sandra Dunn

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineRigourMedicineFamily medicinePediatricsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many clinicians refer to published or local guidelines when counseling expectant parents about perinatal care decisions. The number of guidelines created and currently in use in Canada and the quality of those guidelines is unknown. To assess the quality of guidelines created and used in Canada regarding the perinatal care of 22 to 25 week GA infants. We contacted the 32 Canadian Neonatal Network centres to determine: 1) if they had created their own guideline; and, 2) what Canadian guideline(s) they used. Any guideline(s) used were retrieved for assessment with the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) Instrument. This six-domain, 23-item instrument assesses guideline quality (eg, scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour and transparency of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence). Three reviewers independently assessed each guideline. Items with a score difference of >3 were reviewed to reach consensus on a revised score. Twenty-nine of the 32 centres responded (91%). Twenty-seven of the 29 centres used the national Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS) statement as a guideline. One centre used their regional guideline. An outborn centre reported the CPS statement did not apply to them. Two centres used local guidelines in addition to the CPS statement; only one provided their guideline. Therefore, one national, one regional and one local guideline were obtained and assessed with the AGREE-II instrument. Major deficits were found within all AGREE II domains for the three guidelines. The domains with the lowest scores were generally ‘rigour of development’ and ‘applicability’. The overall quality score was 44%, 39%, and 33% for the national, regional and local guidelines, respectively. No guideline was deemed suitable for clinical use given the identified flaws. The national guideline was considered useable with many modifications. Several guidelines on the perinatal care of 22 to 25 week GA infants exist in Canada. Many deficits were identified in the quality of their development. The benefits of guidelines are dependent on their quality; therefore, the use of a poorly developed guideline may be detrimental to decision-making processes and patient care. Canada urgently needs a guideline with recommendations established through a rigorous and transparent development process.

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)0.223
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.547
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2230.547
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0210.026
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207