Implementing evidence-based interventions for managing pediatric hydrocephalus: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pediatric hydrocephalus (PH) accounts for one of the most frequent neurological conditions in children and with a high burden in developing countries. The plurality of its etiological mechanisms has led to several therapeutic modalities, including the endoscopic third ventriculostomy, which has shown significant benefits. This study aims to determine the availability of PH treatment modalities worldwide using an implementation science framework. Methods This systematic review will be conducted following AMSTAR guidelines and reported following PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search from database inception to the date the search is run will be conducted in Medline, Embase and Global Index Medicus. Conference abstracts, scoping, systematic reviews (SRs), book chapters and non-French/English publications will be excluded. After the screening process, data will be extracted, and its quality analyzed. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias 2.00 tool will be employed to assess the risk of bias. Odds or risk ratios and mean differences with their 95% confidence interval will measure the effect. The I2 statistic will describe effect heterogeneity in meta-analysis data. No Ethic approval is required. Study Implications Evidence-based practice is a complex problem-solving approach derived from high-quality evidence. Their implementation models are well reported in neurosciences in resource-limited countries. This SR will use the Framework for Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance to conceptualize the public health impact of PH treatment modalities. We will identify reasons for the low use of an evidence-based strategy to inform policy. Systematic Review Registration The protocol has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022354804).
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 | 0.065 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.010 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".