Assessing the quality of guidelines for primary aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the validity and applicability of clinical guidelines on the management of primary aldosteronism and to list their discrepancies to allow health-care providers and guideline developers to make informed decisions. DESIGN AND METHODS: Primary aldosteronism management guidelines, including specialist, subgroup, general guidelines written in English, were obtained from electronic databases. Appraisers independently extracted the data, and used the Appraisal Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) tool and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria to independently evaluate the methodological quality of the guidelines. Then, the appraisers used the Guideline Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) tool to assess the implementation of the guidelines that complied with AGREE-II and IOM. In addition, we further compared the discrepancies in the primary aldosteronism management recommendations. RESULTS: We have identified 12 guidelines published between 2006 and 2016. Only the Endocrine Society and the Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines of them were of good methodological quality according the AGREE-II and IOM instrument, but with still much room for improvement. Neither of these two was rated as easily implementable according to the GLIA tool. Discrepant recommendations were identified at all management steps (screening, confirmation, classification, treatment and follow-up). CONCLUSION: The guidelines quality was mostly poor, and the higher quality guidelines also needed improvement prior to their implementation. Meanwhile, significant differences existed in the recommendation for the same clinical problem. Therefore, future guideline development should be performed in strict accordance with the AGREE-II, IOM and GLIA criteria to improve the diagnosis and treatment of primary aldosteronism.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".