MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288039689 · doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11307

Diagnosing, Managing, and Supporting Return to Work of Adults With Rotator Cuff Disorders: Clinical Practice Guideline Methods

2022· article· en· W4288039689 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph-Omer Dyer, Patrick Doiron-Cadrin, Simon Lafrance, Jean‐Sébastien Roy, Pierre Frémont, Clermont E. Dionne, Joy C. MacDermid, Michel Tousignant, Annie Rochette, Véronique Lowry, Marie Saulnier, Tatiana Vukobrat, François Desmeules

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineRotator cuffClinical PracticeWork (physics)MedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyEngineeringPathologyMechanical engineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To present the methods used to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) with recommendations endorsed by key stakeholders for assessing, managing, and supporting return to work for adults with rotator cuff disorders. DESIGN: Clinical practice guideline development. METHODS: A steering committee composed of the research team of this project led the development of this CPG in 5 phases, which followed the standards of the NICE and AGREE II collaborations. During the preparation phase (I), a multidisciplinary working committee of experts in managing rotator cuff disorders (n = 20) determined the scope and objectives of the CPG. The recommendations development phase (II) included initial knowledge synthesis, development of preliminary recommendations, systematic consultations with a multidisciplinary panel of key stakeholders (n = 51) using a modified three-round Delphi approach and drafting of the original CPG. In the external evaluation phase (III), an external committee of experts evaluated the original CPG using the AGREE II tool. In the dissemination phase (IV), the strategy for disseminating the CPG was developed and implemented. During the update phase (V), the CPG was revised based on an update of the initial knowledge synthesis. RESULTS: Seventy-three preliminary recommendations were developed from the initial knowledge synthesis. During the Delphi consultation, all of these recommendations were endorsed, and one new recommendation was proposed by panelists. The original CPG received an overall AGREE II score of 83% from the external evaluators. In 2021, an update of the initial 2017 knowledge synthesis was conducted and 13 recommendations were revised. CONCLUSION: The 5-phase consensus methods approach guided the development of a high-quality CPG on assessing, managing, and supporting return to work for adults with rotator cuff disorders. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(10):665–674. Epub: 27 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11307

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.004
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.382 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical TherapySame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207