Guideline Recommendations for Oral Care After Acquired Brain Injury: Protocol for a Systematic Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral care is important to prevent buccal and systemic infections after an acquired brain injury (ABI). Despite recent advancements in the development of ABI clinical practice guidelines, recommendations for specific clinical processes and actions to attain adequate oral care often lack information. OBJECTIVE This systematic review will (1) identify relevant ABI clinical practice guidelines and (2) appraise the oral care recommendations existing in the selected guidelines. METHODS A search strategy was developed based on a recent systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for ABI. The protocol includes a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and DynaMed Plus databases, as well as organizational and best-practice websites and reference lists of accepted guidelines. Search terms will include medical subject headings and user-defined terms. Guideline appraisal will involve the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II ratings, followed by a descriptive synopsis for oral care recommendations according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence levels. RESULTS This project started in April 2019, when we developed the search strategy. The preliminary search of databases and websites yielded 863 and 787 citations, respectively, for a total of 1650 citations. Data collection will start in August 2020 and we expect to begin disseminating the results in May 2021. CONCLUSIONS Nursing staff may not have detailed recommendations on how to provide oral care for neurologically impaired patients. The findings of this review will explore the evidence for oral care in existing guidelines and improve outcomes for patients with ABI. We expect to provide adequate orientations to clinicians, inform policy and guidelines for best practices, and contribute to future directions for research in the ABI realm. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/17249
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 | 0.052 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 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".