Characterisation of hospital-produced guidelines regarding management of temporary tube feeding care in general paediatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims There is significant variation in the implementation of temporary tube feeding management in children and a paucity of associated clinical practice guidelines covering all phases of care, from decision making regarding tube insertion through to tube weaning. Development of clinical practice guidelines should consider levels of evidence other than randomised control trials. Examining hospital-produced guidelines used by frontline health staff, for example, could distinguish areas of application of evidence-based recommendations, as well as domains of care in need of increased implementation. This article describes the content of existing hospital-produced guidelines relating to tube feeding care in a general paediatric population. Methods Hospital-produced guidelines were sought by mailing 200 health services worldwide and searching Queensland Health's Electronic Publishing Service in Australia and Google. A content analysis was then performed. Results The 13 collected hospital-produced guidelines from Australia, the UK and Canada generally comprehensively reported on processes related to the decision-making, tube placement and tube maintenance phases. However, reporting on oral feeding while tube feeding, tube feeding dependency, tube feeding exit planning, and the social and emotional aspects of tube feeding were areas within these phases that had limited coverage. Recommendations for the phase of tube weaning were also infrequently included. Conclusions Development of formal clinical practice guidelines covering all tube feeding phases should assist in optimising patient and health service outcomes.
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 | 0.038 | 0.247 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".