The ingredients of a Clinical Practice Guideline: an exploration of the diversity of research approaches on practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundA qualitative assessment of the research used in the development of a widely used Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) to gain insight into the kinds of evidence that informs the development of CPGs.MethodsAll articles cited within the 2003 Canadian Pediatric Asthma Consensus Guideline (“the Guideline”) were secured, as was the literature cited by these articles. Two independent reviewers coded all 98 articles referenced by the Guideline (“primary citations”), and the 3,167 articles referenced by the primary citations (“secondary citations”), along three schemes: article type, research design and article orientation.ResultsAmong the primary and secondary citations Clinical research was the most represented type (53%), followed by Health Services (25%), Population Health (18%), and Biomedical (4%). There was a strong interdependence between Clinical and Health Services Research articles with each type frequently citing the other. Observational study designs were most common (48%), followed by experimental studies (31%) and secondary research (21%).DiscussionWhile CPGs rely on significant support from clinical or biomedical randomized controlled trials, the translation of research into practice is non-linear with an important role for Health Services Research and Population Health. This may have implications for funding agencies and other supporters of health research who are working to bridge the gap between research and clinical practice.
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 | 0.190 | 0.361 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".