MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3112839332 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037396

Clinical preventive guidelines for school-aged children and adolescents in primary care: a protocol for a systematic review

2020· review· en· W3112839332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magdalini Patseadou, Eva Pfarrwaller, Dagmar M. Haller

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Genève
KeywordsMedicineGrey literatureProtocol (science)MEDLINESystematic reviewCochrane LibraryFamily medicineMedical educationCritical appraisalAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Guidelines for clinical preventive services targeting school-aged children and adolescents in primary care are limited, often inconsistent and difficult to apply in clinical contexts. This publication describes the protocol concerning a comprehensive systematic review that primarily aims to collect and synthesise available guidelines for prevention in primary care focused on school-aged children living in high-income regions. A second objective is to assess the quality of identified documents. Methods and analysis We will search for reports providing clinical practice guidelines or consensus or expert opinion on preventive actions in paediatric primary care. We will use the WHO definition of prevention. We will focus on children aged 6–18 years living in the European region, the USA, Canada and Australia. We will search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library and guidelines-specific databases from 1 January 2010. We will also explore the grey literature using web search engines (Google and Google Scholar). We will finally obtain unpublished information through personal contact with national paediatric societies. We will summarise all identified documents as well as their potential methodological bias. We will further use the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation Instrument, version II tool to critically appraise their quality. Ethics and dissemination Our findings will contribute to the identification of clinical preventive guidelines for which implementation in routine paediatric primary care should be considered. We intend to disseminate our results through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020163184.

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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.013
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.011

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 head0.577
GPT teacher head0.677
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→