MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170067034 · doi:10.1002/clt2.12033

Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: Quality appraisal of observational comparative effectiveness studies using the REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool. An EAACI methodology committee analysis

2021· article· en· W3170067034 on OpenAlexaff
Danilo Di Bona, Giovanni Paoletti, Derek K. Chu, J. Pepys, Luigi Macchia, Enrico Heffler, Giorgio Walter Canonica

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Translational Allergy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersEuropean Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineRandomized controlled trialCritical appraisalIntensive care medicineQuality of life (healthcare)GuidelineDiscontinuationMedical physicsAlternative medicinePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Observational comparative effectiveness studies in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represent an important evidence source answering research questions that can be challenging to obtain from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as long-term benefits of AIT, the effects on asthma prevention and the onset of new allergen sensitizations. However, observational studies are prone to several sources of bias, which limit their reliability.The REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was recently developed to assist in quality appraisal of observational comparative research to enable identification of useful nonrandomized studies to be considered within guideline development. OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the quality of published observational comparative AIT studies using RELEVANT. METHODS: Observational studies comparing AIT to pharmacotherapy for respiratory allergies, assessing as outcome measures reduction of symptoms and/or medication use reduction, were retrieved by computerized bibliographic searches. According to RELEVANT, a failure to meet any one of primary items (background, design, measures, analysis, results, discussion/interpretation, and conflict of interest) represents a critical flaw, significantly undermining the validity of the study results. RESULTS: The 14 studies identified supported the benefit of AIT in real-life, which persists after treatment discontinuation. However, none of them met all the 7 primary RELEVANT criteria. The main defects were reported in the design (28.6% of studies), measures and analysis (64.3% of studies), and results (78.6% of studies) items, due to selection bias and lack of methods for adjusting controls. Half of the studies did not report on conflict of interest. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more robust observational research in AIT. RELEVANT appears as an easy-to-use and sensitive tool for quality appraisal in AIT studies.

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)0.522
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.671
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5220.671
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.024
Bibliometrics0.0290.027
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.673
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.086 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Translational AllergySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207