Systematic review of economic evaluations investigating education, exercise, and dietary weight management to manage hip and knee osteoarthritis: protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend education, exercise, and dietary weight management as core treatments to manage osteoarthritis (OA) regardless of disease severity or co-morbidity. Evidence supports the clinical effectiveness of OA management programs, but the cost-effectiveness of core treatments remains unclear. We will systematically review, synthesize, and assess the literature in economic evaluations of core treatments (education, exercise, and dietary weight management) for the management of hip and/or knee OA. METHODS: We will search the following elecftronic databases (from inception onwards): MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit. Economic evaluations alongside randomized or nonrandomized clinical trials investigating OA education, exercise, and dietary weight management interventions will be included. Title, abstract, and full text of relevant publications will be screened independently by two reviewers. A content matter expert will resolve any conflicts between two reviewers. Key information from relevant papers will be extracted and tabulated to provide an overview of the published literature. Methodological quality will be evaluated using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. A narrative synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted. Subgroup analysis will attempt to find trends between research methods, intervention characteristics, and results. DISCUSSION: The findings of this review will evaluate the breadth and quality of economic evaluations conducted alongside clinical trials for core treatments in OA management. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020155964.
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 | 0.062 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.010 |
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".