Evaluación Agree-Ii De Guías De Práctica Clínica Sobre Radiodermatitis Aguda. [Agree-Ii Evaluation Of Clinical Practice Guidelines In Acute Radiodermatitis]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN: Objetivo: Evaluar y comparar la calidad de las guías de práctica clínica (GPC) sobre prevención y tratamiento de la radiodermatitis aguda (RDA). Metodología: Evaluación de la calidad metodoló- gica mediante el instrumento AGREE-II. Búsqueda de GPC en fuentes especializadas. Selección de GPC-RDA con antigüedad no superior a 5 años. Revisión por 3 evaluadores. Resultados: De siete GPC localizadas se seleccionaron 3 (dos mexicanas y una canadiense y cols.). La calidad media conseguida fue del 59% (calidad suficiente). Comparando los 6 Dominios AGREE, solo el primer dominio (alcance y objetivo), obtuvo calificación de buena calidad (>75%), siendo el “peor” el dominio 5 (aplicabilidad) que fue considerado de “baja calidad” (< 50%), en todas las GPC evaluadas. El resto de los dominios lograron una calidad suficiente (57,7%). Una GPC fue calificada como “no recomendable” y ninguna GPC fue considerada como “muy recomendada” por parte de los revisores. Conclusiones: La GPC Mexicana del IMSS y la GPC canadiense del grupo MASCC, fueron calificadas como “recomendables con condiciones”, debiendo mejorar aspectos clave como: utilizar una escala de evidencia de mayor rigor metodológico, actualizar las recomendaciones de evidencia, incluir un proceso de implementación viable y especificar la independencia editorial de la GPC. ABSTRACT: Objective: To evaluate and compare the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on prevention and treatment of acute radiodermatitis (RD). Methodology: Evaluation of methodological quality through the AGREE-II instrument. Search for CPG in specialized sources. Selection of CPGRD with an age of no more than 5 years. Review by three evaluators. Results: Of seven localized CPGs, 3 (two Mexican and one Canadian) were selected. The average quality achieved was 59% (sufficient quality). The first domain (scope and objective), obtained a good quality score (>75%), being the “worst” domain 5 (applicability) that was considered “low quality” (<50%) In all CPGGs evaluated. The rest of the domains achieved a sufficient quality (57.7%). A CPG was rated as “not recommended”, and no CPG was considered “highly recommended” by the reviewers. Conclusions: The CPG Mexicana of the IMSS and the Canadian GPC of the group MASCC, were considered as “recommended with conditions”; should improve key aspects such as: use a scale of evidence of greater methodological rigor, update the recommendations of evidence, include a viable implementation process and specify the editorial independence of the CPG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.104 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".