MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921713407 · doi:10.1097/jwh.0000000000000130

Establishing Expert-Based Recommendations for the Conservative Management of Pregnancy-Related Diastasis Rectus Abdominis: A Delphi Consensus Study

2019· article· en· W2921713407 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sinéad Dufour, Stéphanie Bernard, Beth Murray‐Davis, Nadine Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Womenʼs Health Physical Therapy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodDelphiMedicineNominal group techniqueLikert scalePsychologyKnowledge managementComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Pregnancy-related diastasis rectus abdominis (DRA) is a prevalent condition. Consequences of a widened linea alba ultimately remain unknown. Current evidence on conservative management is conflicting, creating debate among practitioners. This study aims at developing a set of expert consensus-based recommendations for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Methods: Selected Canadian women's health physiotherapists were invited to participate in a 3-phase Delphi consensus study. Phase I comprised 82 items divided into 6 domains, and to determine agreement, each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as agreement greater than 80%. In phase II, items receiving consensus were ranked and collapsed and summary descriptions were proposed. In phase III, final consensus was determined. Results: A total of 21 of the 28 (75%) invited experts participated. Phase I generated 38 consensus statements. Phase II translated into 30 consensus statements as well as modifications to proposed summary statements for each data category. Remaining items did not reach consensus. Consensus for 28 expert-based recommendations was achieved in phase III. Conclusions: This study generated 28 expert-based recommendations achieved through a 3-phase consensus process for the assessment and conservative management of DRA. Nationally recognized Canadian expert physiotherapists in women's health agree that the impairments and dysfunctions related to DRA are multidimensional and emphasize the need for a global and tailored care approach. Clinical Relevance: This is the first study to establish consensus across key stakeholders to assist in bridging the current evidence-practice gap regarding pregnancy-related DRA. Our findings point to matters that require further study. Level of Evidence: 5 (expert opinion). This article has a Video Abstract available at https://links.lww.com/JWHPT/A24.

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)0.323
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3230.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Womenʼs Health Physical TherapySame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207