MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043426241 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034017

Development of a core outcome set for studies on prevention and management of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism (COSPVenTE): a study protocol

2020· article· en· W3043426241 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandria King, Rohan D’Souza, Lizabeth Teshler, Nadine Shehata, Ann Kinga Malinowski

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodProtocol (science)PregnancyPopulationFamily medicineOutcome (game theory)Health careMEDLINEIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy and post partum are times of heightened risk for the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which in turn is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and long-term morbidity. The current research aimed at improving health guidelines for women with pregnancy-associated VTE is limited by inconsistency in outcome reporting preventing comparison across studies, and lack of input from patients with respect to outcomes they propose are most important to measure. A suggested solution is the development of a core outcome set (COS) that defines the minimum criteria for outcome reporting in clinical trials and prospective studies. COSs function to facilitate data harmonisation and increase homogeneity in outcome reporting while incorporating the voice of women in this population in the planning of research to inform their ongoing care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of a COS for studies on pregnancy-associated VTE will comprise five steps. First, a systematic review of the published literature will identify currently reported outcomes, their definitions and measurements if applicable. This will be followed by in-person interviews with patients, clinicians, researchers, hospital administrators and policy-makers to identify outcomes they consider important. Third, the long list of outcomes obtained from steps I and II will be condensed through online Delphi surveys involving an international group of relevant stakeholders including patients. This will be followed by a face-to-face consensus meeting with representatives of all stakeholder groups to arrive at a consensus on the final COS. Lastly, to determine how the identified core outcomes should be measured, another literature review and Delphi process will be carried out as necessary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Mount Sinai Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB 18-0314-E). Study results will be published in open-access journals and presented at obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine and haematology conferences. All progress will be documented on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) and Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials databases. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019111479.

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)0.260
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2600.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.011
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.009

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 head0.692
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.057 · 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
DomainMethods
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207