MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921932321 · doi:10.1089/acm.2018.0419

Intervention Development Process for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial: The Thoracic Peri-Operative Integrative Surgical Care Evaluation Trial

2019· article· en· W2921932321 on OpenAlexafffund
Dugald Seely, Julie Ennis, Ellen McDonell, A Fazekas, Linlu Zhao, Tim Asmis, Rebecca C. Auer, Dean Fergusson, Salmaan Kanji, Donna E. Maziak, Tim Ramsay, Paul Chamberland, Chris Spooner, Jennifer Threader, Andrew Seely

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalCanadian College of Naturopathic MedicineOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
FundersLotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyPeriMEDLINEIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryNursingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Use of complementary therapies is high among people with cancer despite research gaps. The Thoracic Peri-Operative Integrative Surgical Care Evaluation (POISE) Trial will evaluate the impact of an integrative care intervention delivered by naturopathic doctors (NDs) in conjunction with usual care for patients undergoing surgery for lung, gastric, and esophageal cancer. OBJECTIVES: To describe the multistep, multidisciplinary process of defining the integrative care intervention to be used in the Thoracic POISE trial using a principle-based approach that is pragmatic, holistic, safe, feasible, evidence driven, and consensus based. METHODS: An Intervention Development Committee (IDC) made up of a multidisciplinary team of health care providers (NDs, surgeons, oncologists, nurses, dietitians, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and psychologists), researchers, and patients was established to oversee the process. Potential intervention components were identified through a clinical practice survey and expert opinion. Systematic literature reviews were conducted and scores assigned based on the following criteria: usage, safety, goals, feasibility/scalability, and evidence. The IDC selected an intervention to be piloted that consists of a standard palette including core and optional components. Safety, known risks, and interactions with pharmaceuticals were evaluated using industry and professional monographs, a scoping literature review, and consultations with hospital pharmacists. RESULTS: The clinical practice survey and expert opinion identified 28 components for consideration. Following literature reviews, scoring, consensus from the IDC, and safety and interaction considerations, an intervention palette consisting of core and optional components was defined. The intervention options vary based on the patient's phase of treatment and symptom-specific needs. The intervention includes supplements, physical recommendations (exercise), nutritional counseling, and psychological support (audio scripts). CONCLUSION: Through a multistep, multidisciplinary process an integrative care intervention was developed for the Thoracic POISE trial. The intervention will be piloted in a single-arm feasibility study, followed by a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT), and finally a multicenter RCT.

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)0.199
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.243
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1990.243
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.007

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineSame topicComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207