MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283817690 · doi:10.7326/m22-0514

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care

2022· review· en· W4283817690 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim K El Mikati, Joanne Khabsa, Tarek Harb, Mohamed Khamis, Arnav Agarwal, Héctor Pardo‐Hernández, Sarah H. Farran, Assem M. Khamis, Ola El Zein, Rayane El-Khoury, Holger J. Schünemann, Elie A. Akl, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Brian S. Alper, Yasser Sami Amer, Thurayya Arayssi, James M. Barker, Imad Bou Akl, Isabelle Boutron, Romina Brignardello‐Petersen, Kristine Carandang, Adam Cuker, Fadi El‐Jardali, Iván D. Flórez, John Grove, Gordon Guyatt, Glen Hazlewood, Miranda Langendam, Emma McFarlane, Joerg J Meerpohl, Zachary Munn, M. Hassan Murad, Reem A. Mustafa, Robby Nieuwlaat, Artur Nowak, Amir Qaseem, Gabriel Rada, Marc Righini, Bram Rochwerg, María Ximena Rojas, Deborah Siegal, Reed Siemieniuk, Shahnaz Sultan, Peter Tugwell, Tari Turner, Shilpa Venkatachalam, Wojtek Wiercioch

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsImpactCanada Research ChairsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careNursingFamily medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.285
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.244
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2850.244
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0260.016
Science and technology studies0.0140.038
Scholarly communication0.0250.025
Open science0.0140.017
Research integrity0.0200.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.686
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.012 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207