MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907038781 · doi:10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000392

Improving outcomes for neonates with gastroschisis in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

2018· review· en· W2907038781 on OpenAlexafffund
Naomi Wright, Monica Langer, I Norman, Melika Akhbari, Q. Eileen Wafford, Niyi Ade‐Ajayi, Justine Davies, Dan Poenaru, Nick Sevdalis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Paediatrics Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersKing's College LondonMcGill University Health CentreWellcome TrustMcGill UniversityNorthwestern UniversityWellcome
KeywordsGastroschisisProtocol (science)Low and middle income countriesLow incomeMedicineBusinessEconomicsDemographic economicsDeveloping countryBiologyEconomic growthPregnancyGeneticsAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is a significant disparity in outcomes for neonates with gastroschisis in high-income countries (HICs) compared with low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Many LMICs report mortality rates between 75% and 100% compared with <4% in HICs. AIM: To undertake a systematic review identifying postnatal interventions associated with improved outcomes for gastroschisis in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three search strings will be combined: (1) neonates; (2) gastroschisis and other gastrointestinal congenital anomalies requiring similar surgical care; (3) LMICs. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global, and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be identified through Open-Grey, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and ISRCTN registry (Springer Nature). Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two reviewers independently and team consensus sought on discrepancies. The primary outcome of interest is mortality. Secondary outcomes include complications, requirement for ventilation, parenteral nutrition duration and length of hospital stay. Tertiary outcomes include service delivery and implementation outcomes. The methodology of the studies will be appraised. Descriptive statistics and outcomes will be summarised and discussed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since no new data are being collected. Dissemination will be via open access publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal and distribution among global health, global surgery and children's surgical collaborations and international conferences. CONCLUSION: This study will systematically review literature focused on postnatal interventions to improve outcomes from gastroschisis in LMICs. Findings can be used to help inform quality improvement projects in low-resource settings for patients with gastroschisis. In the first instance, results will be used to inform a Wellcome Trust-funded multicentre clinical interventional study aimed at improving outcomes for gastroschisis across sub-Saharan Africa. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018095349.

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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.014
Bibliometrics0.0160.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.006

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.319 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Paediatrics OpenSame topicCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFrench-language works237,207