MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138800395 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044888

Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review protocol

2021· review· en· W3138800395 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rita McMorrow, Barbara Hunter, Christel Hendrieckx, Dominika Kwaśnicka, Leanne Cussen, Felicia Ching Siew Ho, Jane Speight, Jon Emery, Jo‐Anne Manski‐Nankervis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of MelbourneDeakin UniversityDiabetes VictoriaAustralian Rotary HealthFederation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLPsycINFOMEDLINEType 2 diabetesCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewPopulationResearch designFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryDiabetes mellitusPsychological interventionSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes is a global health priority. People with diabetes are more likely to experience mental health problems relative to people without diabetes. Diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of depression and diabetes distress during diabetes care. This systematic review will examine the effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched using a prespecified strategy using a prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Setting and study design strategy. The date range of the search of all databases will be from inception to 3 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, if required, using Covidence software. Two reviewers will undertake risk of bias assessment using checklists appropriate to study design. Data will be extracted using prespecified template. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis, if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this review of published studies. Presentation of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200246.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.020
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.008

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207