MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123233014 · doi:10.33151/ajp.18.885

Protocol for Development of a Consensus-Based Reporting Guideline Extension for Pre-Hospital Case Reports (Prehospital-Care)

2021· article· en· W3123233014 on OpenAlexaff
J. Pearce, Robin Pap, David Moher, Julia Williams, Paul Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Paramedicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineProtocol (science)Health careContext (archaeology)Delphi methodNursingMedical educationMedical emergencyAlternative medicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Case reports make important contributions to evidence-based practice. As with research of any methodological design, the quality and completeness in how the evidence is reported influences the strength of the evidence. Quality in reporting is best achieved through the use of a consensus-based reporting guideline. ‘Case Reports’ (CARE) is a 13-item reporting guideline for case reports. To make CARE more applicable, several discipline specific ‘extensions’ have been developed. Pre-hospital care is an emerging clinical discipline rich in its own specific context and character. Therefore, the aim of this project is to develop and disseminate a pre-hospital extension of the CARE reporting guideline (PREHOSPITAL-CARE). Methods This project will consist of four phases and will be undertaken in accordance with the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. Phase 1 will comprise a systematic review aimed at identifying features commonly reported in pre-hospital case reports. In phase 2, two consensus-based processes will be conducted, including a Delphi method and an interactive consensus meeting, to produce a list of items that will form the draft guideline items for PREHOSPITAL-CARE. Phase 3 will see this draft being piloted among a selected group of pre-hospital clinicians, academics and students. In the fourth and final phase, an extensive dissemination strategy will be executed, including publication of the PREHOSPITAL-CARE reporting guideline and an ‘elaboration and explanation’ (E&E) companion paper to advocate for the standardised, high-quality reporting of pre-hospital case reports. Outcomes The final outcome will be the publication of the PREHOSPITAL-CARE reporting guideline with an associated E&E paper. Discussion The reporting of health research, including pre-hospital case reports, has been criticised for a lack of completeness and consistency. The development of PREHOSPITAL-CARE will enable the improvement and standardised reporting of pre-hospital case reports.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of ParamedicineSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207