Protocol for systematic review of telemedicine in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, is a chronic inflammatory condition with significant morbidity which requires lifelong follow-up with healthcare providers. Clinic visits, hospitalizations, surgical interventions, and medications impart notable physical, social, and financial challenges for patients. Furthermore, they place considerable strain on provider time and healthcare resources. Telemedicine has been gaining popularity for the cost and time savings achieved through remote patient monitoring. However, despite its widely reported success and acceptance, notable concerns have also emerged in its capacity to manage patients with varying degrees of disease activity, comorbid disabilities, and limitations to the access to technological services.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We will search PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Google Scholar databases using key terms to extract articles assessing telemedicine in IBD management. Articles published between January 2000 and May 2021 will be included. Two rounds of literature review using a three-step method will be performed. Risk of Bias assessment will be performed using Covidence, and quality assessment of selected articles will be done using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist.EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The results of the systematic review will consider the reported context in which telemedicine was used, its efficacy and acceptance among patients and practitioners.CONCLUSIONS: Our study analyze the patient's satisfaction with telemedicine together with the feasibility of implementing and conducting this new approach. The implementation of this technology present important challenges for physicians and clinics, especially for the management of IBD.
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 | 0.086 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 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".