MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285594870 · doi:10.3390/children9071050

AGREEing on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment

2022· review· en· W4285594870 on OpenAlexaff
Yasser Sami Amer, Shuliweeh Alenezi, Fahad A. Bashiri, Amel Hussain Alawami, Ayman Shawqi Alhazmi, Somayyah A. Aladamawi, Faisal Alnemary, Yasser Alqahtani, Maysaa Buraik, Saleh S. AlSuwailem, Shahad M. Akhalifah, Marcela Augusta de Souza Pinhel, Melanie Penner, Ahmed M. El-Malky

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersKing Saud UniversityCooperative Research Centre for Living with AutismNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence
KeywordsNiceMedicineAutism spectrum disorderAutismSystematic reviewExcellenceGuidelineCLARITYFamily medicinePsychologyMEDLINEPsychiatryPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a multifaceted neurodevelopmental disorder requiring multimodal intervention and an army of multidisciplinary teams for a proper rehabilitation plan. Accordingly, multiple practice guidelines have been published for different disciplines. However, systematic evidence to detect and intervene must be updated regularly. Our main objective is to compare and summarize the recommendations made in the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for ASD in children released from November 2015 to March 2022. METHODS: CPGs were subjected to a systematic review. We developed the inclusion and exclusion criteria and health-related questions, then searched and screened for CPGs utilizing bibliographic and CPG databases. Each of the CPGs used in the study were critically evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. In a realistic comparison table, we summarized the recommendations. RESULTS: Four eligible CPGs were appraised: Australian Autism CRC (ACRC); Ministry of Health New Zealand (NZ); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Healthcare Improvement Scotland (SIGN-HIS). The overall assessments of all four CPGs scored greater than 80%; these findings were consistent with the high scores in the six domains of AGREE II, including: (1) scope and purpose, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) rigor of development, (4) clarity of presentation, (5) applicability, and (6) editorial independence domains. Domain (3) scored 84%, 93%, 86%, and 85%; domain (5) 92%, 89%, 54%, and 85%; and domain (6) 92%, 96%, 88%, and 92% for ACRC, NICE, NZ, and SIGN-HIS, respectively. Overall, there were no serious conflicts between the clinical recommendations of the four CPGs, but some were more comprehensive and elaborative than others. CONCLUSIONS: All four assessed evidence-based CPGs demonstrated high methodological quality and relevance for use in practice.

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)0.338
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.640
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3380.640
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.017
Bibliometrics0.0330.031
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.481
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207