MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281488378 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.799723

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Systematic Review With AGREE II

2022· review· en· W4281488378 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing Municipal Administration of HospitalsBeijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support
KeywordsMedicineNiceCLARITYDementiaClinical PracticeScope (computer science)Systematic reviewMEDLINEFamily medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important for the effective treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). However, recommendations provided by different quality guidelines may lead to varied clinical practice outcomes. Objective: To assess the quality of available CPGs for the management of BPSD and summarize the best recommendations for treating BPSD. Methods: This was a systematic review of CPGs for the management of BPSD with data obtained from electronic databases and evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, consisting of six domains: "Scope and purpose", "Stakeholder involvement", "Rigor of development", "Clarity of presentation", "Applicability", and "Editorial independence". The criteria for high-quality guidelines were set as: the score of high-quality guidelines in the "Rigor of development" domain should be ≥60% and as well as a score of >60% in at least three other domains. High-quality guidelines were selected for recommendation extraction, and the final recommendations were formed in combination with the latest meta-analysis and randomized clinical-trial results. Results: In term of median scores in each domain for the six included CPGs, "Scope and purpose" (87.5%) scored better than all others, whereas "Applicability" (46.5%) was the domain with the lowest score. Four CPGs (2015 APA, 2018 NICE, 2018 CANADA, 2020 EAN) met the criteria of high-quality guidelines and were used to extract recommendations. From these four CPGs, nine specific recommendations related to the management of BPSD were summarized, of which seven were related to pharmacological treatment and two to non-pharmacological treatment. These recommendations covered the applicability of antipsychotic drugs, medication recommendations, withdrawal times, and several suitable non-pharmacological therapies. Conclusion: The quality of CPGs for the management of BPSD requires improvement, especially for the "Applicability" domain. For psychotic-like symptoms in dementia, the use of antipsychotics should be based on the individual's risk-benefit ratio, and the use of atypical antipsychotics seems to be a better choice. Non-pharmacological treatments may be suitable for emotional symptoms and sleep disorders. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020209204.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.419
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.158 · 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