The Methodological Quality Assessment of Published Papers based on Family-Centered Empowerment Model: A Scientometric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: According to the widespread prevalence of different chronic diseases, nurses need to know the choices, necessities, and abilities of patients. The study purpose was to investigate the methodological quality of published papers based on Family-Centered Empowerment Model (FCEM). Methods: This study was a systematic review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was used to retrieve all national and international studies in the field of FCEM. The final papers were reviewed for different methodological dimensions using three quantitative scales: Jadad, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, and Newcastle-Ottawa, and qualitative scale of Cochrane risk of bias. Findings: In the initial search, 644 papers were retrieved; following PRISMA screening guideline, 47 relevant papers were recognized. Jadad scale scores showed that one study received a score of 5 and 33 received a score of less than 3. Consort scale scores indicated that four studies were scored 7 and the same number were scored less than 5. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores showed that 13 studies were scored 8, and 4 were scored less than 4. The five dimensions of Cochrane's risk of bias scale are detailed in the paper. Conclusion: The methodological quality of applied studies based on the FCEM was relatively good, but their reporting style and quality were inadequate.
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 | 0.300 | 0.597 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.075 | 0.063 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".