Protocol for Development of a Consensus-Based Reporting Guideline Extension for Pre-Hospital Case Reports (Prehospital-Care)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.180 | 0.336 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.122 | 0.042 |
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".