Children’s and parents’ perceptions concerning surgical attire: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature about children's and parent's perceptions on surgical attire. DATA SOURCE: A systematic search was conducted in the databases EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. Grey literature was searched on Google Scholar, Open Grey and ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Database. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 2,567 papers were identified. After a two-phase selection, 15 studies were included in narrative synthesis. Children favored wearing white coats in five of the nine included studies (55.5% [95%CI 48.3-62.7]; p=1.00). With respect to parents' preferences, results of vote counting showed that in 11 of 15 included studies, they favored physicians wearing white coats (73.3% [95%CI 67.9-78.6]; p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Children and parents have preferred physicians to wear a white coat with a very low certainty of evidence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".