The Canadian Dermatology Association’s Top Five Choosing Wisely Canada Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this article, we present the Canadian Dermatology Association's (CDA) Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) list of top "Five Things Physicians and Patients Should Question in Dermatology" and the evidence in support of each recommendation. METHODS: Using a nominal technique, the CDA Working Group and Task Force generated an initial list based on literature review and expert consultation. After several rounds of list refinement via a modified Delphi process, a final list of recommendations was generated. These were approved by the CDA Board of Directors, presented at the CDA 93rd Annual Conference in 2018, and published by CWC in 2019. RESULTS: The top five recommendations are as follows: (1) Don't routinely prescribe antibiotics for bilateral lower leg redness and swelling; (2) Don't routinely prescribe topical combination corticosteroid/antifungal products; (3) Don't routinely use topical antibiotics on a surgical wound; (4) Don't prescribe systemic antifungals without mycological confirmation of dermatophyte infection; and (5) Don't use oral antibiotics for acne vulgaris for more than 3 months without assessing efficacy. DISCUSSION: This list of recommendations aims to encourage both physicians and patients to reevaluate ineffective, yet common, practices in treating dermatologic conditions. These recommendations represent actionable changes in practice, and therefore have considerable potential to enhance value-based care in dermatology. CONCLUSIONS: This list was developed to identify tangible changes in practice within dermatology that may reduce inefficiencies, prevent potential patient harm, and improve care. Future advocacy work may include updates, feedback obtainment, and patient care handouts, to continue to promote value-based healthcare and best practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".