How Inhaler Technique is Assessed in Children and Young People: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundAsthma is the most common chronic childhood condition. Unfortunately, many children have poorly controlled asthma. Current guidelines strongly recommend that all asthma review appointments must include an assessment of the patient’s inhaler technique. However, most guidelines do not provide information on how the healthcare professional should conduct this assessment. The aim of this scoping review is to explore the published literature on methods used to assess inhaler technique. MethodsThis scoping review will follow the frameworks founded by Arksey and O’Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane library for studies published from 1st January 1956 to 30th November 2021, on methods of assessing inhaler technique in children and young people aged 1 to 16 years of age with asthma. We will include randomised control trials, case control studies, cohort studies and retrospective studies which investigate methods used to assess inhaler technique in children and young people. We will include studies conducted in all areas where inhaler technique assessment occurs and studies conducted by all healthcare professionals who usually undertake inhaler assessments in practice. Two reviewers will complete all screening and data extraction independently. Data will be extracted onto a charting table and a descriptive summary of the results presented. DiscussionThis scoping review will provide a broad overview of currently used methods to assess inhaler technique in children and young people with asthma. The analysis of which will allow us to consider how these methods might be used in clinical practice and research settings. Scoping review registration Open Science Framework (osf.io/e47sa).
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 | 0.133 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.013 |
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".