Care Transitions of Colorectal Cancer Patients from Hospital to Community: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of care transition strategies from hospital-to-community compared to usual care for patients with colorectal cancer to reduce hospital stay, 30-day readmissions, and emergency room visits up to 30 days. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol that followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020162249). We will include studies available in the electronic databases PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS with care transition strategies/actions from hospital to community as the primary outcome. Eligible studies will be selected, and data will becombined and synthesized using Review Manager (RevMan 5.4) software. We will combine risk ratios or odds ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data using a random effects model. Discussion: This review will contribute to the practice and development of effective and safe care transition strategies from hospital to community for colorectal cancer patients. There is an expectation that this review will provide much needed evidence that effective care transitions could reduce short term hospital readmission, and may thus provide added value in the care of colorectal cancer patients. Conclusion: The results of the review will be used to provide clear recommendations for hospital and primary care management to improve care transitions and, as a result, also improve integration in the healthcare system.
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 | 0.057 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.005 |
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".