MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293716322 · doi:10.1111/acem.14588

Establishing the international research priorities for pediatric emergency medicine point‐of‐care ultrasound: A modified Delphi study

2022· article· en· W4293716322 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter J. Snelling, Allan Shefrin, Matthew M. Moake, Kelly R. Bergmann, Erika Constantine, Julia K. Deanehan, Almaz Dessie, Marsha A. Elkhunovich, Delia L. Gold, Aaron E. Kornblith, Margaret Lin‐Martore, Benjamin Nti, Kathryn Pade, Niccolò Parri, Adam Sivitz, Samuel H. F. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersGriffith University
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodRelevance (law)Ranking (information retrieval)DelphiMedical educationFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM) Point-of-care Ultrasound (POCUS) Network (P2Network) was established in 2014 to provide a platform for international collaboration among experts, including multicenter research. The objective of this study was to use expert consensus to identify and prioritize PEM POCUS topics, to inform future collaborative multicenter research. METHODS: Online surveys were administered in a two-stage, modified Delphi study. A steering committee of 16 PEM POCUS experts was identified within the P2Network, with representation from the United States, Canada, Italy, and Australia. We solicited the participation of international PEM POCUS experts through professional society mailing lists, research networks, social media, and "word of mouth." After each round, responses were refined by the steering committee before being reissued to participants to determine the ranking of all the research questions based on means and to identify the high-level consensus topics. The final stage was a modified Hanlon process of prioritization round (HPP), which emphasized relevance, impact, and feasibility. RESULTS: Fifty-four eligible participants (16.6%) provided 191 items to Survey 1 (Round 1). These were refined and consolidated into 52 research questions by the steering committee. These were issued for rating in Survey 2 (Round 2), which had 45 participants. At the completion of Round 2, all questions were ranked with six research questions reaching high-level consensus. Thirty-one research questions with mean ratings above neutral were selected for the HPP round. Highly ranked topics included clinical applications of POCUS to evaluate and manage children with shock, cardiac arrest, thoracoabdominal trauma, suspected cardiac failure, atraumatic limp, and intussusception. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus study has established a research agenda to inform future international multicenter PEM POCUS trials. This study has highlighted the ongoing need for high-quality evidence for PEM POCUS applications to guide clinical 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 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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207