MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353084899 · doi:10.3389/fped.2023.1092578

Clinical practice guidelines for neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: A systematic review using the appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation (AGREE) II instrument

2023· review· en· W4353084899 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yasser Sami Amer, Jasim Anabrees, Mohamed Abdelmawla, Ayman Abdalgader, Asmaa Almazroei, Ibrahim Alhifzi, Abdullah Hawash AlOnazi, Yasser Sabr, Layal Hneiny, Ahmed M. El-Malky, Ayesha Alshalawi, Ahmed Alayoubi, Iftikhar A. Chaudhry, Omar Elkhateeb

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewGuidelineRigourDeclarationCLARITYFamily medicineMEDLINEPediatricsMedical educationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective: To systematically review, critically appraise the quality of recent clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), and map their recommendations. Data Sources: CPG databases (GIN, ECRI, NICE, SIGN, DynaMed), Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL), and related specialized professional societies (e.g., AAP, CPS, BAPM, RCPCH, and SNS). Study Selection: Original de-novo developed evidence-based CPGs for HIE, group authorship, Arabic or English languages, and international or national scope. The systematic review was drafted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Johnston et al methodological guide. Data Extraction: Quality assessment of the included HIE CPGs by the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument and report their characteristics, AGREE II ratings, and recommendations. Data Synthesis: Our search retrieved 2,489 citations, of which two recent HIE CPGs were eligible and appraised: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) and Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Services (QMN). The overall assessment of the QMN CPG was superior (83%). Domain 1 (Scope & Purpose) scored (47%, 63%), Domain 2 (Stakeholder Involvement) (72%, 39%), Domain 3 (Rigour of Development) (48%, 43%), Domain 4 (Clarity & Presentation) (100%, 96%), Domain 5 (Applicability) (59%, 9%), and Domain 6 (Editorial Independence) (67%, 17%) for the QMN and CPS CPGs respectively. All appraisers recommended the QMN CPG for use in practice. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the QMN CPG was superior with the relevant recommendations for its use in neonatal practice. Limitations: limited to Arabic and English languages. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=258291, identifier: CRD42021258291.

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)0.172
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.443
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1720.443
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.018
Bibliometrics0.0340.027
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.763
GPT teacher head0.675
Teacher spread0.089 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207