MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172421267 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045707

Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B efficacy and safety for cutaneous and mucosal leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2021· review· en· W3172421267 on OpenAlexaff
Faheel Naeem, Keren Nathan, Jeffrey Chivinski, Taline Ekmekjian, Michael Libman, Sapha Barkati

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryAdverse effectMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewProtocol (science)PopulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of cutaneous and mucosal leishmaniasis (CL and ML, respectively) must be individualised as there is no universal therapeutic approach. Intravenous liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmB) is an accessible and relatively safe treatment that has been increasingly used for the treatment of CL and ML. While several descriptive studies have been published on the efficacy and safety of L-AmB, there are no interventional studies. Moreover, the findings from published studies have not yet been integrated and synthesised. Therefore, we aim to evaluate and consolidate the descriptive evidence on the efficacy and the safety of Intravenous L-AmB treatment for CL and ML in both the New and Old World. METHODS AND ANALYSES: A systematic review of all relevant study types with no restriction on date or language of publication will be conducted. Online databases including MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Scopus, Ovid and WHO databases were searched on 3 April 2020. The search included all study types that assess Intravenous L-AmB treatment for CL and ML in humans. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study Design strategy and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be used to determine which studies will be selected for final inclusion. The quality of included case series and case reports will be assessed using modified quality assessment tools. A narrative synthesis of the findings will be provided and the primary outcome and secondary outcome of interest, response rate and adverse events rate, respectively, and the 95% CI will be ascertained. Estimates from individual studies will be pooled using random-effects model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require formal ethical approval since no primary data will be collected. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173440.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.023
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.006

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207