MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016862354 · doi:10.21037/atm.2020.03.130

A quality evaluation of guidelines on five different viruses causing public health emergencies of international concern

2020· review· en· W3016862354 on OpenAlexaff
Siya Zhao, Jin Cao, Qianling Shi, Zijun Wang, Janne Estill, Shuya Lu, Xufei Luo, Junxian Zhao, Hairong Zhang, Jianjian Wang, Qi Wang, Yangqin Xun, Jingyi Zhang, Meng Lv, Yunlan Liu, Xiaomin Nie, Ling Wang, Xianzhuo Zhang, Weiguo Li, Enmei Liu, Xiaohui Wang, Yaolong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthQuality (philosophy)MedicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project aims to evaluate the methods and reporting quality of practice guidelines of five different viruses that have caused Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC) over 20 past years: the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Ebola virus, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), Zika virus and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically searched databases, guideline websites and government health agency websites from their inception to February 02, 2020 to extract practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus, SARS-CoV-2 and the diseases they caused. The literature was screened independently by four researchers. Then, fifteen researchers evaluated the quality of included guidelines using the AGREE-II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II, for methodological quality) instrument and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare, for reporting quality) statement. Finally, a total of 81 guidelines were included, including 21 SARS-CoV guidelines, 11 Ebola virus (EBOV) guidelines, 9 MERS-CoV guidelines, 10 Zika Virus guidelines and 30 SARS-CoV-2 guidelines. The evaluation of the methodological quality indicated that the mean scores of each domain for guidelines of each virus were all below 60%, the scores for guidelines in the domains of "clarity of presentation" being the highest and in the "editorial independence" lowest. The mean reporting rate of each domain for guidelines of each virus was also less than 60%: the reporting rates for the domain "background" were highest, and for the domain "funding and interests" lowest. The methodological and reporting quality of the practice guidelines for SARS-CoV, Ebola virus, MERS-CoV, Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 guidelines tend to be low. We recommend to follow evidence-based methodology and the RIGHT statement on reporting when developing guidelines.

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)0.556
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.835
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5560.835
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0300.028
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.949
GPT teacher head0.717
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Translational MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207