MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010855313 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033453

Low-value injury care in the adult orthopaedic trauma population: a protocol for a rapid review

2020· review· en· W3010855313 on OpenAlexafffund
Mélanie Berube, Lynne Moore, Stéphane Leduc, Imen Farhat, Martin Lesieur, Jean Lamontagne, Stéphane Pelet, Gregory K. Berry, Pier‐Alexandre Tardif, Caroline Côté, Jérôme Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité LavalHôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEPopulationRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionMeta-analysisEvidence-based medicineProtocol (science)Family medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryPsychiatryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Orthopaedic injuries affect almost 90% of trauma patients. A previous scoping review and expert consultation survey identified 15 potential low-value intra-hospital practices in the adult orthopaedic trauma population. Limiting the frequency of such practices could reduce adverse events, improve clinical outcomes and free up resources. The aim of this study is to synthesise the evidence on intra-hospital practices for orthopaedic injuries, previously identified as potentially of low value. Methods and analysis We will search Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Epistemonikos to identify systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort studies and case–control studies that evaluate selected practices according to a priori PICOS statements (Population–Intervention–Comparator–Outcome–Study design) . We will evaluate the methodological quality for systematic reviews using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR-2). Risk of bias in original studies will be evaluated with the Cochrane revised tool for RCTs (RoB2) and with the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. If for a given practice, more than two original studies on our primary outcome are identified, we will conduct meta-analysis using a random effects model and assess heterogeneity using the I 2 index. We will assess credibility of evidence (I–IV) based on statistical significance, sample size, heterogeneity and bias as per published criteria. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required as original data will not be collected. Knowledge users from three level I trauma centres are involved in the design and conduct of the study in accordance with an integrated knowledge translation approach. Findings related to the rapid review will be available in May 2020. They will be presented to key stakeholders to inform discussions and raise awareness on low-value injury care. In addition, results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at national and international scientific meetings and to healthcare associations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.799
GPT teacher head0.700
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207