Patient-reported outcome measures for paediatric acute lower respiratory infection studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended for capturing meaningful outcomes in clinical trials. The use of PROMs for children with acute lower respiratory infections (ALRIs) has not been systematically reported. We aimed to identify and characterise patient-reported outcomes and PROMs used in paediatric ALRI studies and summarise their measurement properties. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane were searched (until April 2022). Studies that reported on patient-reported outcome (or measure) use or development and included subjects aged <18 years with ALRIs were included. Study, population and patient-reported outcome (or measure) characteristics were extracted. RESULTS: Of 2793 articles identified, 18 met inclusion criteria, including 12 PROMs. Two disease-specific PROMs were used in settings in which they had been validated. The Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale was the most frequently used disease-specific PROM (five studies). The EuroQol-Five Dimensions-Youth system was the most frequently used generic PROM (two studies). There was considerable heterogeneity in validation methods. The outcome measures identified in this review lack validation for young children and none involve sufficient content validity for use with First Nations children. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for PROM development that considers the populations in which the burden of ALRI predominates.
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 | 0.089 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".