MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213213548 · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05791-8

Establishing a core outcome set for mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) in children: study protocol for a rapid literature review, candidate outcomes survey, and Delphi surveys

2021· article· en· W3213213548 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alison H. Howie, Kylie Tingley, Michal Inbar‐Feigenberg, John J. Mitchell, Nancy J. Butcher, Martin Offringa, Maureen Smith, Kim Angel, Jenifer Gentle, Alexandra Wyatt, Philippe M. Campeau, Alicia Chan, Pranesh Chakraborty, Farah El Turk, Eva Mamak, Aizeddin Mhanni, Becky Skidmore, Rebecca Sparkes, Sylvia Stöckler, Beth K. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineOttawa Public HealthChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreCanadian MPS Society for Mucopolysaccharide and Related DiseasesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Data extractionSystematic reviewMEDLINEFamily medicineRandomized controlled trialHealth careClinical trialPediatricsAlternative medicineNursingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a group of inherited metabolic diseases characterized by chronic, progressive multi-system manifestations with varying degrees of severity. Disease-modifying therapies exist to treat some types of MPS; however, they are not curative, underscoring the need to identify and evaluate co-interventions that optimize functioning, participation in preferred activities, and quality of life. A Canadian pediatric MPS registry is under development and may serve as a platform to launch randomized controlled trials to evaluate such interventions. To promote the standardized collection of patient/family-reported and clinical outcomes considered important to patients/families, health care providers (HCPs), and policymakers, the choice of outcomes to include in the registry will be informed by a core outcome set (COS). We aim to establish a patient-oriented COS for pediatric MPS using a multi-stakeholder approach. METHODS: In step 1 of the six-step process to develop the COS, we will identify relevant outcomes through a rapid literature review and candidate outcomes survey. A two-phase screening approach will be implemented to identify eligible publications, followed by extraction of outcomes and other pre-specified data elements. Simultaneously, we will conduct a candidate outcomes survey with children with MPS and their families to identify outcomes most important to them. In step 2, HCPs experienced in treating patients with MPS will be invited to review the list of outcomes generated in step 1 and identify additional clinically relevant outcomes. We will then ask patients/families, HCPs, and policymakers to rate the outcomes in a set of Delphi Surveys (step 3), and to participate in a subsequent consensus meeting to finalize the COS (step 4). Step 5 involves establishing a set of outcome measurement instruments for the COS. Finally, we will disseminate the COS to knowledge users (step 6). DISCUSSION: The proposed COS will inform the choice of outcomes to include in the MPS registry and, more broadly, promote the standardized collection of patient-oriented outcomes for pediatric MPS research. By involving patients/families from the earliest stage of the research, we will ensure that the COS will be relevant to those who will ultimately benefit from the research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021267531 , COMET.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.096
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0960.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.522
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.077 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207