Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Practice Guidelines for Self‐Harm in Children and Adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to systematically identify and appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relating to the assessment and management of suicide risk and self-harm in children and adolescents. Our research question is as follows: For young people (under 18 years old) presenting to clinical care with suicide ideation or a history of self-harm, what is the quality of up-to-date CPGs? Using the PRISMA format, we systematically identified CPGs meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, two independent raters conducted appraisals of the eligible CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. CPGs were then classified as "poor quality," "minimum quality," and "high quality" using operationally defined criteria developed a priori. We identified 10 eligible CPGs published or renewed between 2005 and May 2017. Only the long-term management of self-harm CPGs produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence met "high-quality" criteria. Despite multiple options of CPGs published to choose from, only one was identified as "high quality," where bias is adequately minimized. Clinicians are advised to direct resources to implementing the "high-quality" 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it