Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for neonatal sepsis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument: A systematic review of neonatal guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Neonatal sepsis (NS) continues to be a critical healthcare priority for the coming decades worldwide. The aim of this study was to critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal sepsis and to summarize and compare their recommendations. Methods: This study involves a systematic review of CPGs. We identified clinical questions and eligibility criteria and searched and screened for CPGs using bibliographic and CPG databases and professional societies. Each included CPG was assessed by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We summarized the recommendations in a comparison practical table. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Its protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42021258732). Results: Our search retrieved 4,432 citations; of which five CPGs were eligible and appraised: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP 2018) (35 and 34 weeks); Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS 2017); National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE 2021); and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QH 2020). Among these, the overall assessment of two evidence-based CPGs scored > 70% (NICE and QH), which was consistent with their higher scores in the six domains of the AGREE II instrument. In domain 3 (rigor of development), NICE and QH scored 99 and 60%, respectively. In domain 5 (applicability), they scored 96 and 74%, respectively, and in domain 6 (editorial independence), they scored 90 and 71%, respectively. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the NICE CPG was superior followed by the QH CPG with relevant recommendations for use in practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021258732, PROSPERO (CRD42021258732).
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 | 0.194 | 0.475 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".