Quality of clinical practice guidelines for gestational and congenital toxoplasmosis: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality and transparency of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of gestational and congenital toxoplasmosis (CT). METHODS: Systematic review of the literature on gestational and CT CPGs conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, TripDatabase, Biblioteca Virtual en Salud databases and extensive manual searches in 19 CPG repositories. The characteristics of each of the guidelines were extracted using My AGREE PLUS on-line. Three reviewers assessed overall quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: The combined systematic review found 8651 citations. Of them 46 full texts were reviewed, and eight documents were finally included: four toxoplasmosis CPGs, three prenatal care CPGs that included recommendations on toxoplasmosis, and one pregnancy infection guideline that also included recommendations on toxoplasmosis. The AGREE II domains found to have the highest scores were 'clarity of presentation' (85%; [37%-100%]), followed by 'scope and purpose' (73%; [33%-98%]), and 'editorial independence' (51%; [3%-94%]); the domains with the lowest scores were 'rigour of development' (36%; [11%-79%]), 'stakeholder involvement' (34%; [24%-85%]), and 'applicability' (17%; [6%-83%]). The Colombian and Spanish-Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía (AETSA) CPGs had the highest global AGREE II scores. Absolute interrater agreement was good to excellent. CONCLUSION: Substantial quality variation was found among CPGs, which provided recommendations in accordance with the context of the disease in the corresponding country or region. Only two of the CPGs appraised obtained a good score and are classified as 'recommended'.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.220 | 0.965 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".