MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885245352 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025266

Protocol for a scoping review to support development of a CONSORT extension for randomised controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected health data

2018· review· en· W2885245352 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda Kwakkenbos, Mahrukh Imran, Kimberly A McCord, Margaret Sampson, Ole Fröbert, Chris Gale, Lars G. Hemkens, Sinéad Langan, David Moher, Clare Relton, Merrick Zwarenstein, Eric I. Benchimol, Isabelle Boutron, Marion Campbell, David Erlinge, Sena Jawad, Philippe Ravaud, Danielle B. Rice, Maureen Sauvé, Tjeerd van Staa, Lehana Thabane, Rudolf Uher, Helena M. Verkooijen, Edmund Juszczak, Brett D. Thombs

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcMaster UniversityMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaImpactMcGill UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWestern UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaJewish General Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsMedicineChecklistObservational studyMEDLINEProtocol (science)Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiologyGuidelineFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewHealth careHealth services researchAlternative medicinePublic healthNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. The development of an extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data is being undertaken with the goal of improving reporting quality by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these designs. To develop this extension to the CONSORT statement, a scoping review will be conducted to identify potential modifications or clarifications of existing reporting guideline items, as well as additional items needed for reporting RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In separate searches, we will seek publications on methods or reporting or that describe protocols or results from RCTs using cohorts, registries, electronic health records and administrative databases. Data sources will include Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. For each of the four main types of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, separately, two investigators will independently review included publications to extract potential checklist items. A potential item will either modify an existing CONSORT 2010, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology or REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data item or will be proposed as a new item. Additionally, we will identify examples of good reporting in RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed scoping review will help guide the development of the CONSORT extension statement for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

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)0.218
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.407
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2180.407
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.020
Bibliometrics0.0220.026
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0090.013
Research integrity0.0190.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2140.079

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 head0.977
GPT teacher head0.760
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreProtocol

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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207