MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994995779 · doi:10.1097/phm.0000000000001370

The Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist

2019· article· en· W2994995779 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Négrini, Susan Armijo‐Olivo, Michele Patrini, Walter R. Frontera, Allen W. Heinemann, Wendy Machalicek, John Whyte, Chiara Arienti

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewMedicineBlindingChecklistConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsDelphi methodProtocol (science)MEDLINEPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: One of the goals of Cochrane Rehabilitation is to strengthen methodology relevant to evidence-based clinical practice. Toward this goal, several research activities have been performed in rehabilitation literature: a scoping review listed the methodological issues in research, a study showed the low clinical replicability of randomized controlled trials, two systematic reviews showed the relevant items in reporting guidelines, and a series of articles discussed main methodological issues as a result of the first Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting (Paris 2018). The need to improve the quality of conduct and reporting of research studies in rehabilitation emerged as a relevant task. The aim of this article is to present the Randomized Controlled Trial Rehabilitation Checklists (RCTRACK) project to produce a specific reporting guideline in rehabilitation. METHODS: The project followed a combination of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and EQUATOR Network methodologies. The project includes five phases. The first is kick-off, first consensus meeting and executive and advisory committee identification. The second is literature search and synthesis, where eight working groups will produce knowledge synthesis products (systematic or scoping reviews) to compile items relevant to reporting of randomized controlled trials in rehabilitation. The topics will be as follows: patient selection; blinding; treatment group; control group and co-interventions; attrition, follow-up, and protocol deviation; outcomes; statistical analysis and appropriate randomization; and research questions. The third is guidelines development, which means drafting of a document with the guidelines through a consensus meeting. The fourth is Delphi process consensus, a Delphi study involving all the rehabilitation research and methodological community. The fifth is final consensus meeting and publication. CONCLUSIONS: The RCTRACK will be an important contribution to the rehabilitation field and will impact several groups of rehabilitation stakeholders worldwide. The main goal is to improve the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The RCTRACK also wants to improve the recognition and understanding of rehabilitation within Cochrane and the scientific and medical community at large.

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)0.475
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.591
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4750.591
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0250.023
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0140.012
Research integrity0.0110.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.016

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations51
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & RehabilitationSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207