Methods used in adaptation of health–related guidelines: A systematic survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adaptation refers to the systematic approach for considering the endorsement or modification of recommendations produced in one setting for application in another as an alternative to de novo development. OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess the methods used for adapting health-related guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals, and to assess the quality of the resulting adapted guidelines. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase up to June 2015. We assessed the method of adaptation, and the quality of included guidelines. RESULTS: Seventy-two papers were eligible. Most adapted guidelines and their source guidelines were published by professional societies (71% and 68% respectively), and in high-income countries (83% and 85% respectively). Of the 57 adapted guidelines that reported any detail about adaptation method, 34 (60%) did not use a published adaptation method. The number (and percentage) of adapted guidelines fulfilling each of the ADAPTE steps ranged between 2 (4%) and 57 (100%). The quality of adapted guidelines was highest for the "scope and purpose" domain and lowest for the "editorial independence" domain (respective mean percentages of the maximum possible scores were 93% and 43%). The mean score for "rigor of development" was 57%. CONCLUSION: Most adapted guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals do not report using a published adaptation method, and their adaptation quality was variable.
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 | 0.254 | 0.550 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".