MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362523154 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069341

Effects of home healthcare for adults with chronic respiratory diseases and post-COVID-19 syndrome on hospital bed turnover rate: a protocol of systematic review with meta-analysis

2023· article· en· W4362523154 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Leite, Karolinne Souza Monteiro, Thayla Amorim Santino, Gabriela Chaves, Joubert Vitor de Souto Barbosa, Tacito Z.M. Santos, Cleia Teixeira do Amaral, Sara Ahmed, Zenewton André da Silva Gama, Karla Morganna Pereira Pinto de Mendonça

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do NorteConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPsychological interventionMeta-analysisHealth carePsycINFOPublication biasIntensive care medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) have a high prevalence, morbidity and mortality worldwide. After the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients readmitted after hospital discharge increased. For some populations, early hospital discharge and home healthcare may reduce health costs in patients treated at home when compared with those hospitalised. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of home healthcare for patients with CRDs and post-COVID-19 syndrome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and PsycINFO. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT studies reported in full text and abstracts. No language restriction will be applied. We will include studies related to adults with a diagnosis of CRDs or post-COVID-19 syndrome that compared in-patient hospital care with any home healthcare. We will exclude studies with participants with neurological, mental diseases, cancer or pregnant women. Two review authors will screen abstracts and select the eligible studies. To investigate the risk of bias, we will use the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool for RCT, and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions for non-RCT. We will use the five Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) considerations to assess the quality of the evidence. Patients and the public will be involved in the preparation, execution and implementation phases of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required because only published data will be analysed. The publication of the results in peer-reviewed journals and at relevant conferences will guide the direction of future research in the field and healthcare practice. The results will also be disseminated in plain language on social media to disseminate the knowledge to society and the public interested in the topic.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.044
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.003

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.360 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207